Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Cycle Tracks Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

PROHIBITION OF DRIVING OR PARKING ON CYCLE TRACKS

Mr. Cecil Franks: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'British Telecommunications' and insert
'the operator of a telecommunications code system (as defined by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 4 to the Telecommunications Act 1984)'.
The amendment stems from the passing of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It extends the defence that is given in clause 2(2) for the use of motor vehicles on cycle tracks when operators of a telecommunications code system, under the 1984 Act, are carrying out any works in relation to any apparatus belonging to them or used by them for the purposes of their undertaking. As it is highly unlikely that the appointed day under the Telecommunications Act will precede the coming into force of this measure, I have not included transitional provisions in favour of British Telecommunications, which will eventually become the operator of a telecommunications code system under the Telecommunications Act.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As those who were present in Committee will recall, I said that I thought it would be necessary to amend clause 2 so that there would be no doubt about where the various responsibilities lay. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) has gone into the issue thoroughly and checked back with my Department and I find the amendment wholly acceptable. I do not see any need for there to be transitional measures, especially because of the timing of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the timing of the Bill. It is our hope that the Bill will become an Act during this Session.
The amendment extends the defence provided in clause 2(2) for the use of motor vehicles on cycle tracks to telecommunications code system operators. We fully realise that until the Telecommunications Act is under way we may not see the full extent of the problems, but I believe that my hon. Friend has succeeded in framing an

amendment that will cover most of the eventualities that we have been able to foresee. That is the advice that have been given.
I hope that hon. Members, who may have read the report of our proceedings in Committee on 11 April, will feel able to accept the amendment. I think that it sorts out what would otherwise be an unacceptable gap between old legislation and this measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

CONVERSION OF FOOTPATHS INTO CYCLE TRACKS

Mr. Franks: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 40, after 'order', insert
'made by them and either—

(a) submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or
(b) confirmed by them as an unopposed order,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
'(1B) An order made under this section by a local highway authority—

(a) may be confirmed by the Secretary of State either in the form in which it was made or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit;
(b) may be confirmed by the authority as an unopposed order only in the form in which it was made.'.

No. 5, in line 5, leave out 'by local highway authorities' and insert
', submission and confirmation'.
No. 6, in page 3, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—
'(a) the publication of notice of the making of an order under this section and of its effect;
(b) the making and consideration of objections to any such order; and
(c) the publication of notice of the confirmation of any such order by the Secretary of State or by a local highway authority, and of the effect of the order as confirmed.'.
No. 7, in line 16, leave out from 'may' to end of line 22 and insert
'in particular make provision—

(a) for enabling the Secretary of State to cause a local inquiry to be held in connection with any order under this section submitted to him for confirmation;
(b) for the decision as to whether any such order should be confirmed, and, if so, as to the modifications (if any) subject to which it should be confirmed, to be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose instead of by the Secretary of State;
(c) for any decision made by any such person in pursuance of paragraph (b) above to be treated, for the purposes of any provision of the regulations or this section, as a decision of the Secretary of State;

and subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (giving of evidence at, and defraying of costs of, local inquiries) shall apply in relation to any local inquiry held in pursuance of paragraph (a) above as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section.'.
No. 10, in line 42, leave out 'made' and insert 'confirmed'.
No. 11, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'by order' and insert
'(subject to and in accordance with the provisions of subsections (1B) to (6) above) by order made by them and either—

(a) submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of Slate, or
(b) confirmed by them as an unopposed order,'.

No. 12, in line 4, leave out from 'section' to second 'with' in line 5.

Mr. Franks: I have had the opportunity to consider clause 3, which has been drafted on the basis that a local authority will propose the making of a footpath conversion order. There should be a right of objection to such an order, and such objections should be considered by an independent inspector who would then report to the local highway authority which, having considered his report, would not proceed with the order or would make it with or without modifications. These procedures are based upon those that apply to traffic regulation orders.
As I said on Second Reading, when discussing the Bill with interested bodies it was suggested that shared use of footpaths is different in concept from a traffic regulation order. When considering shared use, we are asking that a clear decision should be made between the possibility of improving cyclists' safety and the risk of inconveniencing and possibly endangering pedestrians. It was suggested that, bearing in mind the nature of the safety judgment and decision that needs to be made, the inspector should report to the Secretary of State and not to the local highway authority. Those who are anxious about the principle and practice of shared use see that as an additional safeguard. It could also help local authorities to avoid a possible conflict of interest. I accept these arguments.
New subsection (1A), and all the other amendments that I have tabled, stem from that decision. I have had the opportunity to discuss and agree these amendments with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. My proposed amendments substantially change clause 3. No longer will the highway authority propose making an order and then proceed to make it. The local highway authority will make the order, but if it is opposed it will have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State for Transport who may modify it as he thinks appropriate. An unopposed order can be confirmed, without modifications, by the local highway authority.
The amendment to subsection (1) provides that a local highway authority can by order made by it and submitted for confirmation by the Secretary of State, or confirmed by it as an unopposed order, designate a footpath or any part of it as a cycle track.
New subsection (1B) provides that the Secretary of State can confirm an order made by a local highway authority in the form in which it was made or subject to such modifications as he thinks appropriate, or it may be confirmed by the local highway authority as an unopposed order but only in the form in which it was originally made.
Clearly, where an order has been made by a local authority, and it is unopposed, it is wrong that the authority should be allowed subsequently to modify the order, as it is always likely that the modification may give rise to proper objection.
In the amendments to subsections (2) and (3), I propose that the Secretary of State should be given the power to make regulations covering the publication of the notice of the making of an order and of its effect, the making and consideration of objections, the publication of the notice of the confirmation of an order by the Secretary of State or by the local highway authority, the holding of local inquiries by the Secretary of State, and to allow the decision on whether an order is to be confirmed, with or without modifications, to be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State instead of by the Secretary of State. Any decision made by such a person will be treated as a decision of the Secretary of State.
Section 250(2) to (5) of the Local Government Act 1972 cover the giving of evidence at and the defraying of the costs of local inquiries, and shall apply.
My aim has been to simplify the procedure of converting a footpath, or part of it, to a cycle track. Existing procedures involve many stages. Although we are providing for a public inquiry in the event of a contested conversion order, the new procedures will be simpler and less time-consuming than the existing ones. They ensure that the legitimate interests of those who may be affected by a footpath conversion order will be properly considered and that there will be an independent assessment of contested conversion orders.

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). Colleagues will recall that when we were discussing these points in Committee there was more than a degree of anxiety that where natural and understandable objections were made to some conversion orders where, if the local authority was to be judge and jury, it would not necessarily be seen by some of those locally who were opposing the conversion order as the right way to deal with it.
My hon. Friend has had discussions with me and my Department to devise a system wherby someone outside that local area can consider, review and deal with the legitimate worries of those who are anxious about the effect of a conversion order on a footpath.
The amendments simply deal with section 250(2) to (5) of the Local Government Act 1972. In my anxiety over the conversion of existing pedestrian facilities to cycle tracks I have been bothered about those who are blind or partially sighted, and those who cannot move about as swiftly as those who are fleet of foot and perhaps a little younger.
On Second Reading I said that the Department would shortly be issuing revised advice to local highway authorities on shared pedestrian and cycle facilities. That advice will state that where shared use is the only way of overcoming serious accident problems on a carriageway it is essential that the attractions of such arrangements for cycle safety should be properly balanced against the increased risk of danger and inconvenience to pedestrians.
When shared use is introduced, the facilities must be clearly marked and signed so that no impression is given of a general permission to cycle on footpaths or footways. There are no circumstances in which a general or widespread opening up of pedestrian facilities for use by cyclists would be acceptable.
One of the anxieties of many who responded to our discussion document on shared use was that a cycle track converted for shared use would become a free for all for people to ride on footpaths. Those who joined us in Committee were plainly worried about that point, and I made it clear then that a cycle track is different. We are discussing not the pavement but a walkway that is converted for shared use in specific circumstances.
There is nothing in the Bill—if matters are handled properly, as my hon. Friend intends, by the local authority concerned with the conversion—that should increase the danger to pedestrians on the shared facility. However, I want to make it clear beyond any doubt that cycling on footpaths or footways is not and never has been permitted. The Bill does not permit it. It is still an offence. It particularly endangers the lives of the elderly, the less


mobile, the blind and those who are partially sighted. When we talk about shared use it is vitally important to make the contrast between what is proposed in the Cycle Tracks Bill and a pavement on which cycling is not permitted.
The conversion of footpaths, either in whole or in part, to cycle tracks will involve striking a difficult balance in some areas between road safety objectives and the need for security and unimpeded mobility for the users of existing footpaths. There should be a clear right to object to the principle of footpath conversion at any location. It is also appropriate that the public should be thoroughly informed of the type of facility that a local highway authority intends to provide on a cycle track which is maintainable at public expense—in other words, whether there should be some form of kerb or barrier between the cycle track and the adjacent footpath, or a white line, or whether the whole of the footpath is to become a cycle track.
We are particularly concerned here with the situation in which—partly because of width restrictions—there cannot be a kerb or barrier of the type that we would all ideally like to see. Hon. Members will have noted, in crossing from St. Stephen's entrance to the House of Commons to St. Margaret's Westminster, what was described to me by an hon. Member as a most uncomfortable surface by the pedestrian crossing. The raised surface is part of an experiment to try to help the blind and the partially sighted. Its purpose is to change the texture of the surface to warn them in good time that they are at the edge of a pedestrian crossing. That sort of development is being made possible by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, and it may be possible to have it where a kerb is not feasible. But where none of those measures will work and the advice is that white line segregation should be used, we have to understand what is involved and the complaints that might be made against shared use.
Hon. Members will be well aware that white line segregation—or no segregation whatever—is a hazard for the blind and the partially sighted. The lack of a reminder to the cyclist that he should give way to the pedestrian on a path is also of concern to us.
Given the nature of the decision that has to be made about shared use, I consider that, in the case of opposed conversion orders — where, for example, a local community group or a group of the disabled get together and say, "No, this is not the pathway" and there is disagreement at local level—the final decision should fall to the Secretary of State.
The effect of my hon. Friend's amendments will be that the local highway authority will make an order for shared use. If there are objections, the order will have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State before such shared use can be put into operation. After a local public inquiry, the Secretary of State will have the advice that he needs to be able either to confirm the order, with or without modification, or to refuse to confirm the order. That at least gives the assurance that many people who were concerned about shared cycle facilities were seeking, because the local authority will not be the order-making body and the judge of what is taking place.
The provision that the decision whether to confirm an order can be made by the person appointed by the Secretary of State to hold a public local inquiry broadly follows the precedent introduced into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981. In general, the provision has worked, and I shall be interested to know whether hon. Members have any direct experience of it in their constituencies, although I am not sure what sort of wildlife exists in some of the more urban areas. However, as the provision has worked satisfactorily, it should work in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill.
Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations. I believe that we should always consult widely on draft regulations. It is proposed that there shall be full consultation with the police, as they are the people who usually have to deal with the nasty accidents and so on. Consultation is also necessary with local authorities and any statutory undertaker whose land the footpath crosses, and with other interested organisations. All those consultations are necessary if a shared use facility is to work successfully. I hope that we shall be able to give the cycle tracks that result from the Bill as fair a wind as has been given by a wide variety of bodies to the use of many disused railway lines as cycle and walking tracks.
The second part of the draft regulations provides that publicity and statutory notices will need to specify the lengths of footpaths to be converted. They will have to specify the type of segregation that it is proposed to provide between the cycle track and any adjacent footpath, in pursuance of the powers in clause 4.
The two parts of the draft regulations, taken together, provide for almost the widest possible consultation procedure. The all-important third part of the regulations provides for objections to be made to a proposed conversion.
Finally, if there are unwithdrawn objections, the proposals will need to go to a local public inquiry. If the Bill is amended in the way that my hon. Friend is proposing, the inspector will report from that local public inquiry to the Secretary of State for Transport. The Secretary of State will make the final decision whether to confirm the order, with or without modification.
I believe that my hon. Friend is right in seeking by his amendment to require the Department to make the appropriate regulations, but when such regulations are proposed people must be aware that, if no objections are received to an order, the highway authority can proceed to make it without any modification.
I draw particular attention to the making of modifications. While some of the proposals will be broadly uncontroversial and to the benefit of the whole community, many people often have bright ideas, which, dare I say it, coming from a pseudo planning Department, the planners do not always have. I have found that consultation with local amenity groups—the people who will use the facility—often means that a better order is proposed in the first place. I wish that the consultation took place long before we reached the order stage rather than afterwards, when we might have to turn the whole thing over.

10 am

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that that disease of the failure to recognise good ideas is not restricted to local authorities?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I have never believed that it is restricted to local authorities or to Government Departments. In amenity provisions such as this, the need to consult local amenity


groups goes broad and far. If the hon. Gentleman saw the internal notes that I write in the office, he would know how angry I get if consultations are not held at the right time in the process. The important thing is to try to lay down a mode of working that means that people consult before they come up with formal documents. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I try to do that. We should encourage that to be done before the local authority reaches the order-making stage. Then, perhaps, there will not be such extensive use of the local public inquiry system. It is there to safeguard the views of those who do not agree with the order for conversion put forward by the local highway authority.
Therefore, I hope that the House can accept this long series of amendments—Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12—put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness. I hope that it will give hon. Members, when they notify their local groups of the measure, the opportunity to show that there is ample room for objection and modificaton if that is necessary to make the shared use facility a successfully used facility. That is what my hon. Friend wants. I look forward to seeing the first fruits of the Bill before too many years pass.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful to the Minister of State for her detailed explanation of the Government's view of the amendments and to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) — the Bill is his baby — for accepting the representations made in Committee about shared use and the right of appeal for those aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the provisions in the legislation.
The Minister was right to explain the Government's view on shared use in the way that she did. It appears that it would be easy to take the view that the pedestrian and the cyclist happily coexist, but regrettably, in this imperfect world in which we live, that is not necessarily so. The clause in the Bill where provision for the separation of the two is made is more than welcome.
I should like to make a few points in reply to what the Minister said. In Committee I said that in my constituency a disused railway line had been turned into a walkway, and that presumably it would be considered suitable for conversion into a cycle track. The Minister referred to this aspect of our transport and industrial history—disused railway lines. It is not a pleasant subject for those who feel strongly about our railway system, but the fact that disused railway lines exist means that we must discuss what to do with them.
People believe that, as many disused railway lines are in rural areas, the safeguards that were demanded in Committee are not necessary. However, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness will remember from our deliberations that it was said that in urban areas, equally regrettably, there are a number of disused railway lines, similar to the one in my constituency. It is not just a question of the difficulties that might arise between pedestrians and cyclists on urban former railway lines, but objections might be received from people living alongside former railway lines.
I have received letters from constituents expressing the concern that I tried to outline in Committee. What sort of publicity does the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness envisage that local authorities will use to advertise the fact

that they are considering making orders under the Bill? There might be difficulties, such as we have had in the past, with a comparatively small newspaper advertisement that is often missed by those who, unlike hon. Members, do not peruse the local newspaper from cover to cover. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that a statutory notice will be sent to householders living alongside the proposed cycleway, whether it is a disused railway line or not?
The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of amendment No. 7, which concerns the appeal provisions. Both sides of the Committee were concerned that the local authority making the order would act as judge and jury with regard to objections. The fact that not only is there provision for appeals to the Secretary of State but that the final decision maker will be the Secretary of State is to be welcomed.
I reiterate my concern about the publication of statutory notices, which will affect those who might wish to make objections, provided that they know beforehand what is proposed. We touched on this matter in Committee. Whereas the vast majority of cyclists are law-abiding people who enjoy cyling sometimes as a sport, sometimes as a transport necessity and sometimes as a little of both, regrettably the behaviour of a minority of cyclists is likely to cause concern to householders who live adjacent to the cycleways or to those who for many years have enjoyed the benefits of a walkway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure the House about the hearing of those people's objections and notification to them of the proposals that can be made under his otherwise excellent Bill.

Mr. Franks: I have listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I should point out that, although some hon. Members are inclined to refer to my constituency as "Barrow" or "Barrow in Furness", my presence here reflects the votes of the people of Barrow "and" Furness.
In my experience of local government since about 1960 I have found that local authorities are never slow to spend money on matters which they consider useful and beneficial to those whom they represent. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the means and the modus for local authorities to create cycle tracks if they are so minded. It is hoped that Parliament will provide the wherewithal through legislation, but it is up to local authorities, working hand in hand with local and national pressure groups — the Cyclists Touring Club, for example, strongly supports the Bill — to ensure that the opportunities available receive adequate publicity. It is not for us to set down what local authorities should do. It is our duty to give them the opportunity.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman will recall from his local government experience the difficulties involved with the construction of motorways and the soundproofing of adjacent houses. If he does not, the Minister certainly will. Many householders then objected that they were unaware of the facilities available to them under the law because the Department of the Environment or the county councils, as its agents, did not publicise the provisions sufficiently. Indeed, the present Government have been sufficiently kind and wise to allow a change in the law to cater for those who, through no fault of their own, did not make representations at the proper time. My concern is that similar problems should not arise with the Bill. I caution the hon. Gentleman not to be too emphatic about this being


a matter purely for local authorities and not for the House, as all too often it is Parliament which has to put things right subsequently.

Mr. Franks: That is a fair point. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in due course the Department will publish regulations and notes of guidance for local authorities. I hope and assume — I have no reason to believe otherwise — that those notes will emphasise the importance of making well known to those who may be aggrieved their rights to express their grievances. Opposition Members will appreciate, too, that for the next 18 months or so certain authorities, such as the Greater London council and the Greater Manchester council, with which I am extremely familiar, will continue in operation. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that those authorities have never shown the slightest reluctance to spend money on all kinds of obscure causes. The Bill is not an obscure cause, and I have no reason to suppose that they or any other authorities will not ensure that the public are made well aware of their rights.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) wishes to move the other amendments formally, I shall give him the opportunity to do so as they appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Franks: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
'(1A) A local highway authority shall not make an order under this section designating as a cycle track any footpath or part of a footpath which crosses any agricultural land unless every person having a legal interest in that land has consented in writing to the making of the order.
In this subsection "agricultural land" has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948; and "legal interest" does not include an interest under a letting of land having effect as a letting for an interest less than a tenancy from year to year.'.
Clause 3 gives local highway authorities the power to convert all or part of a footpath to a cycle track. While such conversions can provide recreational routes, that is not their primary purpose. The main reason for such a conversion must be the increased safety of cyclists, which is likely to be most useful in urban areas or in rural areas for clearly defined footpaths running outside fields and, for example, linking a village with its school.
I accept the point made by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association that there should be additional protection when a footpath crosses agricultural land. New subsection (1A) provides the additional safeguard by prohibiting conversion of footpaths across agricultural land without the written consent of all those having a legal interest in the land. Agricultural land is defined in section 1(2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 as
land used for agriculture which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business
and land designated by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under section 109(1) of the Agriculture Act 1947.

Mr. Greg Knight: Why does my hon. Friend consider it appropriate that a landowner or tenant with a legal interest in the land should be obliged to signify

consent in writing? One can envisage circumstances in which a landowner may have no valid objection, or indeed no objection at all, but declines to take the trouble to put the consent in writing. Could not the clause provide that the local highway authority shall make an order unless written objection is received from a landowner or someone with a legal interest in the land?

Mr. Franks: It is a matter of where the prime responsibility should lie. It is not the purpose of the Bill to provide cycle tracks across arable land, for instance. The argument was forcefully put to me, and there was no counter-argument, that under the Bill as originally drafted a local authority might, if it were so minded—it is not beyond the realms of possibility in the case of some authorities—create footpaths through fields containing crops or cattle. Therefore, I believe that the onus for ensuring that there are no objections should be on the local authority rather than merely making an order and leaving it to those with an interest in the land to object to the proposals. The onus must be on the local authority to ensure that there are no objections, rather than on landowners or those with a legal interest in the land to protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Peter Snape.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My intention was to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I may have misunderstood the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). Has the hon. Gentleman finished his speech?

Mr. Franks: I have not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was replying to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight).

Mr. Snape: I find the hon. Gentleman's explanation less than satisfactory. As the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) pointed out, amendment No. 3 would mean that there must be written consent before a local highway authority can make an order. Does that not mean that, if it proves impossible to trace the person with an interest in the land or a claim to ownership of it, the highway authority will not be able to make the order? The point made by the hon. Member for Derby, North is valid. The arrangement should be that the owners or those with some interest in the land should have to raise the objection, rather than that an order could be blocked because it was impossible to get their consent in writing.

Mr. Franks: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I made earlier on this amendment. The Bill is not primarily concerned with recreation. Its whole emphasis is to ensure the maximum safety for cyclists, and we are talking primarily — indeed, almost exclusively — about urban areas.
Where a footpath passes through a field—there are many such footpaths — the Bill as drafted makes it possible in theory for a local authoriy to designate that footpath in the middle of nowhere as a cycle track. The owner or the person with a legal interest would then have to follow the procedure set out in the Bill for others who feel aggrieved. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association objected to that, and they had a fair point. The Bill could result in cycle tracks passing through fields of wheat. That was never the intention of any of the hon. Members who support the Bill.


It is right and proper that in such circumstances the onus should be on the local authority to obtain the written consent of all who have a legal interest in the land.

Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman were to put the amendment the other way round, all the objections would be overcome. For example, there might be a tenant with the fag end of a lease—a year or two. He might say that he agreed with the concept of the cycle track going through the land—I am thinking of national parks in particular—but he might be too lazy to put his consent in writing, and he would thereby hold up the whole development. The cycle track might go up to his land and beyond it, but not through it, and the whole project could be ruined because somebody was too lazy to comply. If the new subsection was slightly amended to say that the objections must be put in writing, the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and by my hon. Friend could easily be overcome without affecting the right of somebody to say no.

Mr. Franks: Notwithstanding the interventions by various members of my profession to whose expertise I bow, I must repeat that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure the safety of cyclists and not to create recreational facilities—although that might well be a welcome by-product. I suggest to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that it would be better to leave these points to be considered in another place rather than to take a decision this morning that might itself have to be reconsidered there.
I am sure that those points have been noted, but I cannot agree with them. Forceful representations were made to me and I accepted their validity. The drafting of the Bill is complex, although the Bill is short, and the drafting makes it possible for something to happen that had not been envisaged or intended. I ask hon. Members to accept the amendment. If further amendments should be made, that could be done in another place.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) has made a stong and stirring case for the amendment, but I have doubts about it. Not least, I share some of the worries that have been expressed by some lawyers in the House and by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and the Minister of State.
Unless I am mistaken, the only tracks that can be made under the Bill will be tracks converted from footpaths. One of the great worries of country lovers — people who enjoy walking and riding on horseback, for example—is that footpaths often get lost, ploughed up or blocked off. I do not doubt the sincerity of the National Farmers Union. Its worries must be taken seriously into account. However, we lose huge areas of countryside to concrete every year. It is said that an area the size of Oxfordshire disappears under concrete every 10 years. There is less and less opportunity for access to the countryside by those who live there and in particular by those who live in towns and cities.
One of the reasons why access has become more difficult — apart from the loss to concrete — is the alarming rate at which footpaths are being lost. A footpath

which exists on definitive maps may be ploughed over. The sign indicating the existence of a public right of way may become derelict, and eventually the entrance to the footpath may be blocked off and there may be no way in which members of the public—unless they have a map—can know that there should be a footpath. I do not say that that is brought about deliberately by farmers or landowners, but unfortunately it happens. A large group of horse and pony riders make it their business to clear rights of way which have become lost, covered over and disused. I ask my hon. Friend and those in another place to bear it in mind that if the amendment is accepted as it stands there will not be the number of cycle tracks that my hon. Friend wishes to see created under his enlightened Bill.
It must be reasonable to tell farmers and country landowners that, if they plant wheat or other crops over a footpath, or what might be a cycle track, the local authority must designate an alternative route. Such a route might go round the field, but there must be one. Unless the House ensures that, people who use footpaths will find that there are fewer of them and local authorities that want to convert footpaths to cycle tracks will have fewer to convert. Those paths might even disappear, having been converted, and therefore cyclists will not have the amenities or benefit from the safety that my hon. Friend envisages. I should also like to put in a plea for horse riders who are in similar circumstances.
With regard to safety, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to say that he would like cyclists on converted tracks or in towns to wear fluorescent badges and sometimes crash helmets and the rest, especially at dusk when there is greatest danger and in the countryside when people cycle across fields when farmers are belting across them on a tractor.

Mr. Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, but I understood that this was an intervention and that I had given way to my hon. Friend. Am I listening to an intervention or a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is certainly not an intervention. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) has sat down. I have put the amendment and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) now has the floor. However, because the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness moved the amendment, he has the right to reply without the leave of the House, so he need not be worried that he will not have another opportunity to get in.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friend did not think that I had the gross effrontery to make, or you to allow, such a long intervention. I am willing to give way at any time.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: Of course.

Mr. Snape: We are all fascinated with the issue of safety. I am not trying to do your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must point out that we are dealing with an amendment concerning agricultural land. I know that the hon. Gentleman's role this morning is that of a bike-riding cavalry to save the Government Whips, but it would perhaps be more helpful to the House if we discussed agricultural land rather than fluorescent crash helmets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Ealing, North was beginning to stray a little from the amendment, and I am sure that he will now come back to it.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East does me a disservice. I am a keen member of the parliamentary cycling club and I am not sure that he is. I cycled to the House this morning, bumping over the potholes of the GLC's roads. I was attempting to draw the House's attention to the safety aspects of cycling on cycle tracks over agricultural land. They are worth mentioning, and are not dissimilar to the problems facing cyclists in towns.
Cycle tracks converted from footpaths can be uncomfortable and bumpy, as they are unlikely to be properly laid for cyclists. They are especially dangerous in wet weather, when there can be much mud about. Inexperienced cyclists can skid and fall off. They can also be dangerous in winter, when there is ice about. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East accepts that at dusk it is important for cyclists, whether riding across agricultural land or elsewhere, to wear fluorescent bands. Stray cattle would be alerted by them, as would farmers on tractors. Bicycles should also be properly lit front and rear. It is especially dangerous for cyclists not to have properly lit machines when emerging from cycle tracks across agricultural land on to roads, because pedestrians, other cyclists or motorists might not see them. Such accidents are frequent and I ask the House to take the matter seriously.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider another danger of cycling across agricultural land—that resulting from shooting rights on it. Does he have any helpful observations on that?

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a notably important point which I had not intended to mention. I had the pleasure of walking through the Cotswolds for one and a half days during the Easter recess. I walked across land which was——

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the debate has now strayed into the realms of the ridiculous. The amendment concerns which holder of an interest gives notice to whom, when and how. The subject now being canvassed, while no doubt important, is surely more relevant to Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Ealing, North is quite in order; this is a fairly wide amendment. However, I remind the House that we must stick to the amendments that are being discussed.

Mr. Greenway: As recently as last Saturday, it became clear to me that there is a serious danger to cyclists using tracks across agricultural land that is used for shooting. If the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) thinks that that is not worthy of mention, he should do some thinking. As he is a lawyer, I am surprised at his attitude. The danger arises because cyclists will not know when a shoot takes place near a cycle track. Fanners are under no legal obligation to make it known that there is a shoot and that people might be shooting low—for example, for pheasants. I am not considering the rights or wrongs of game shooting, but simply talking about shooting as a danger.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider many safety factors relating to cyclists using tracks across agricultural land. I

hope that he will change his mind, and I urge those in another place to do the same when they consider this clause.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As many blind people are worried about the possible consequences of passing clause 3, Miss Jill Allen, who is an official representative of the blind organisations and is on their access committee, has attempted to enter the Strangers' Gallery with her guide dog but has been refused access. Many right hon. and hon. Members will regard that refusal as ludicrous because only a few weeks ago that lady and her guide dog waited patiently and were admitted into the other place. Where the interests of so many people are involved, some special arrangements should be made, even if on a temporary basis—although I should like them to be made on a permanent basis—so that this lady and her dog can gain access to the Chamber.
The lady has been told that the dog will be cared for, but I understand that the dog and many animals of the same type fret and become ill when they are taken away from their owners, even for only a short time. This is a problem, and I hope that you can advise the House on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has listened with great sympathy to the hon. Gentleman. We all wish to have the best possible access that conditions allow, especially for people who have any disability. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Services Committee recently considered the arrangements and its recommendation to Mr. Speaker is that the present arrangements should not be changed. I regret that cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any possibility of discretion being exercised by Mr. Speaker or by you? If not, could Mr. Speaker ask the Services Committee to review the position and to take evidence from organisations for the disabled, especially the blind? It is possible for people to gain access to the Strangers' Gallery in wheelchairs, which some might regard as an encumbrance. I hope that you or Mr. Speaker will make those representations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I told the House a moment ago, the Services Committee has recently considered the matter fully. Therefore, I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, but I shall certainly convey to Mr. Speaker the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. Greg Knight: I do not oppose the amendment. but I am less than happy with its drafting. Presumably my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) hopes that, in appropriate cases and where there is no objection, footpaths across agricultural land can be used as cycle tracks. I fear that the clause as drafted will place many obstacles in the way of that happening. A landowner who owns three or four fields aross which there is a footpath may have let that land to 11 different tenants, all of whom have a legal interest in the land.
10.45 am
The amendment would introduce the words,
unless every person having a legal interest in that land has consented in writing",
which would mean that the landowner and the 11 tenants must give their consent in writing to the making of a cycle track order. My hon. Friend may believe that that is reasonable, but is there not a danger that, although all 12


people have no objection to a cycle track order being made, one tenant might not like putting pen to paper and might give his consent orally? In that case, the clause as drafted would prevent an order being made. I hope that at some stage my hon. Friend will reconsider this and will agree to alter the wording. There can be no objection to turning the matter round and saying that anyone who has a legal interest in the land must give any objections in writing. If no written objections are received, an order can be made.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My constituency is largely urban but it includes a chunk of countryside and farms. The hon. Members present in the Chamber today represent predominantly urban interests. The Chamber is hardly heavy with landowners, and I have seen little tweed and smelt little manure on boots this morning.
Legislation that will affect the rights of landowners and the right to access to the countryside should pass through the House with the good will of the urban and rural populations. It would be unwise for the House to try to foist on landowners a requirement that they should allow cycle tracks to be made across their land without their first giving absolute consent in writing. I understand the points made by several of my hon. Friends, but nowadays there is evidence of rifts developing between the 80 per cent. or more of the population who live in urban areas and the much smaller percentage who live in rural areas. If more cyclists and, indeed, more ramblers are to cross farm land, it should be with the full consent of the landowners.
There is no doubt that in recent years there has been a protest move by many ramblers and cyclists, who believe that they should be given unlimited access to the countryside, but that move has not been welcomed by country landowners, who have over the centuries improved their land and, wherever possible, allowed access to it.
With that in mind, when I looked at the original drafting of the clause I shared the worry of members of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) has accepted the pleas and has varied his view according to the worries of the farmers and the landowners, and has now come forward with this amendment. We would be wise to accept it. It would be welcomed with acclaim by those from the countryside.

Mr. Timothy Wood: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), I believe that the amendment improves the Bill; therefore I support it. Nevertheless, I share some of the worries that have been expressed about the possibility of significant constraints on cycle ways in some situations. I encountered a case in local government where the ownership of a cart track at the edge of a new town could not be and still has not been established. Therefore, problems of access and use of that cart track remain. In that case there was a significant financial interest arising from access to possible future industrial type properties. In the case of cycle tracks and cycle ways, such a financial incentive may not be there. Therefore, the local authority may all too often simply give up and say that it cannot introduce a cycle track because it cannot obtain the written permission that would be required by the Bill with this amendment. Is it possible

for the amendment to be redrafted in another place to achieve the objectives that have been set out, while at the same time providing local authorities with a reasonable option if difficulties arise in establishing ownership, as I know they can?

Mrs. Chalker: I well understand the anxieties that have been mentioned by several hon. Members since my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) moved the amendment. However, it is important to consider the reasons for it, which he gave, and to bear in mind what can happen if there is no legal consent.
In welcoming the amendment, which is necessary, I accept, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) and for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) intimated, that it may require some amendment in another place. They have clearly pointed out the problems of non-traceable owners or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North pointed out, of non-traceable lessees of parts of land where the owner may give his consent but where the lessees, who have a legal right, cannot be traced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said that his main reason for seeking to simplify the existing complex footpath conversion procedures is to increase the safety of cyclists. I fully agree with him, as he knows. It is not seen primarily as a way of providing recreational cycle routes but it could be used for that purpose. To be effective, a cycle track must have a smooth permanent surface and therefore it is markedly different from the traditional concept of a rural footpath meandering through the countryside and from time to time passing across agricultural land. It is right that if a footpath which it is proposed to convert to a cycle track crosses agricultural land we should have the prior consent of those with a legal interest in that land. If we were not to do so there would be the inherent danger that a man who gives verbal rather than written consent might change his mind and he could subsequently challenge the footpath in court, whichever court that might be, for no other reason than that he had changed his mind. That is why my hon. Friend has looked for a way to guarantee that an owner and others with a legal interest are aware of the proposal to convert. In saying that there should be a written consent to allow the conversion to proceed my hon. Friend has looked for a record of the consent and only a written consent can provide that. It may be that we are seeing problems where there are none but we are trying to ensure that a cycle track, once established, will continue to provide a facility for a good time to come and not be subject to legal wrangles which could have been avoided by prior written consent to that footpath.

Mr. Bermingham: Could not all the problems be overcome, and the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) be taken into account, simply by making a provision in the Bill to the effect that a person with an interest in the land who wishes to object to the creation of a cycle track must do so within a specific period to the appropriate authority? That is how such matters are taken care of in a number of other areas and that would overcome the problem of the non-traceable owner or person with an interest in the land.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is right and that is why I said that, although this provision is required, it might be necessary to amend it in another place. The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby,


North probably gives us a way out from this particular slight difficulty that we have encountered in an otherwise non-controversial Bill this morning.
We should accept the amendment. We are certainly not trying to prevent recreational cycling in the countryside. There are thousands of miles of rural roads and bridleways available to cyclists and some local authorities have signposted level cycle routes—for example, Cumbria and Wiltshire. Other authorities are considering such routes which from time to time cross agricultural land and when they are doing so we must ask that they not only get written permission but also that the routes are clearly signed so that, as far as possible, they are safe for use by a family to go out cycling. Routes suitable for an experienced cyclist and an adult may not be always suitable for a family with young children.
The amendment does not unduly restrict opportunities to cycle in the countryside. Cyclists have no right to cycle on footpaths in town or country, as I said earlier. If it is proposed to give them the right to cycle on a footpath converted to a cycle track which passes through agricultural land it is only right that those who are dependent on that land should be protected. I hope that the House will accept the amendment with the proviso that between now and its consideration in another place we shall consider the points that have been made by my hon. Friend and advise what can be done to iron out the slight difficulty that we have encountered this morning.

11 am

Mr. Franks: May I take the opportunity to reply to various points made concerning the amendment. I entirely endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) concerning the desire of a member and representative of the Royal National Institute for the Blind to listen to the debate. I have had several discussions with the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and I know of its great interest in the Bill. I have sought to accommodate it, and I share with the hon. Gentleman great regret that—for reasons that some hon. Members may have considered and found right, but which many hon. Members equally found to be wrong—that person was deprived of the opportunity to attend the debate.
Various point have been made by hon. Members in the debate—

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

Orders of the Day — Nuclear Waste (Level Crossing Incident)

11 am

Mr. Michael Howard: (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the incident involving a train carrying nuclear waste which was in collision yesterday with a car at a level crossing near Brookland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): At 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, a train consisting of a locomotive, one vehicle carrying a nuclear flask, and a brake van, struck a private car at Boarmans open level crossing, which is where a public road crosses the single goods line connecting Dungeness power station with the Hastings-Ashford line at Appledore. Trains on the line are restricted to 5 mph The crossing is not gated, but there are clear road warning signs for road users to give way. British Rail, as it is required to do by statute, will make a report of the accident to the Department as soon as its inquiries are complete. However, I am already able to tell the House that the Central Electricity Generating Board staff checked the nuclear flask, and declared it safe and undamaged, at 4.30 yesterday afternoon. I am glad to be able to tell the House that none of the occupants of the car sustained serious injury. The locomotive had some damage which prevented in from continuing. There was no damage to the flask, and no risk of contamination whatever.

Mr. Howard: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider whether the precautions which are taken at level crossings used by trains carrying nuclear waste are sufficient? Will he also ensure that the Central Electricity Generating Board's study of the incident, including, as no doubt it would include, an analysis of the impact on the nuclear flask, is made public so that independent judgments may be formed as to whether the behaviour of the flask in the circumstances which occurred yesterday conformed to the behaviour that would have been predicted for it?

Mr. Mitchell: Whether the precautions are sufficient at the level crossing concerned, and whether extra precautions should be taken, will of course become clear during the inquiry. However, there are clear warning indicators for road users. The train was moving very slowly. In fact, it was moving more slowly than might normally have been the case, since the driver had spotted some sheep on the line, and was sounding his horn in an endeavour to get the sheep to move off the track. In these circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that this was a minor incident at low speed.
As to publication of the report, it would not be the normal practice to the publish a report unless the inspector of railways decided that there should be a formal inquiry.

Mr. Peter Snape: Would the Minister confirm that the speed of trains over open level crossings is invariably low, and that while all hon. Members—at least, all Opposition Members—regret the necessity for the transport of nuclear waste at all, as long as it exists the safest mode of transport is the one used—that is, rail? Would the Minister accept that, every day, dangerous substances are conveyed by road vehicles? Those vehicles are frequently involved in far more serious


accidents than this one, often involving loss of life, yet such accidents are rarely the subject of private notice questions.

Mr. Mitchell: I can confirm that the speed at such level crossings is restricted to 5 mph. For the reasons that I have explained to the House, the speed was lower on this occasion. It is correct, as the hon. Gentleman says, that this is the safest possible mode of moving spent fuel. The flask is made of 14-in thick steel. Indeed, in a recent test, a flask was dropped 30 ft on to a solid platform, and there was no risk to the contents. I can reassure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), whose constituency is involved, that there was no risk whatever to any member of the public from contamination as a result of this minor accident.

Mr. Tim Brinton: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, in spite of the statements that he has made, which are most reassuring, the local people in this area, in which I was a county councillor, have been aware that these trains have been travelling through this area for a long time? Will he not accept that there is an anxiety, but that, at the same time, there has been a trouble-free period of many years? Would he not agree that what was mentioned on the radio this morning—a public example of a simulated crash of such a vehicle—would reassure the public much more than any statements that he can make?

Mr. Mitchell: I accept, and I understand, my hon. Friend's anxiety, as a former county councillor representing the area, and knowing, as he will know, the natural feelings of anxiety of people living in the area. However, I do not think that there is anything in what has occurred on this occasion to give cause for anxiety. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity of reassuring any of his old friends in the area concerned that there is no cause for alarm.
As to the reassurance that my hon. Friend seeks about the effect of impact, I should simply repeat to the House that a test has recently been carried out in which a test flask was dropped 30 ft on to a solid platform. That gave a far greater impact than could conceivably have happened between a motor car and a train moving at 5 mph. In the circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will feel reassured.

Mr. Clement Freud: The hitting of a motorist by a train that is moving at less than 5 mph, impeded by sheep, seems to be some sort of art form. Will the Minister not accept that any movement of nuclear waste has certain dangers? Is it not unnecessary to move such small quantities as one wagon with a locomotive and a brake van? Would the Minister tell the House what stopped the people involved from waiting until there was a sizeable load, which could have been properly policed?

Mr. Mitchell: Of course, one understands the anxieties to which the hon. Gentleman gives voice about any movement of nuclear waste. It is an unpleasant material. One does not like to have quantities of it moving round the country. However, this is a normal, practical management decision of the power station as to the amount of spent fuel which it has to get rid of, and which has to go for

processing at Sellafield. It would not be right to ask for larger quantities to be moved. I am not at all sure that the public would be reassured by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that larger, rather than smaller, quantities should be transported.

Mr. Neil Thorne: My hon. Friend may be aware that similar trains move through my constituency carrying waste from another power station. It would, therefore, be helpful if he would interpret the experiment—when a flask was dropped from a height of 30 ft—in impact terms relating to miles per hour of a train. Many people are hypersensitive on this point and concerned lest there should be danger resulting from an accident of this kind.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend asks me to convert a fall of 30 ft into an impact speed of a railway locomotive. I am not technically qualified to make such a calculation standing on my feet, but I will write giving him the details for which he asks.

Mr. John Fraser: If a train going at less than 5 mph, the driver of which is on the lookout for sheep, can be stopped in an accident with a car, may I ask the Minister to say what precautions exist to prevent the deliberate stopping of a train under those circumstances, perhaps even as an act of terrorism?

Mr. Mitchell: The normal movement of trains occurs throughout the country all the time. In this case the train was carrying some nuclear waste material. Such material is encased in a 14-inch steel cylinder and, as such, is proof against any potential attack.

Mr. Harry Greenway: If the main difficulty was the fact that there was no gate, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that the problem could be overcome, as it is on the continent, by having a gate arm operated by lights, which I gathered my hon. Friend to say were there and which were clearly on view to oncoming motorists and others?

Mr. Mitchell: This is one of those level crossings which has no gate and no signals operated by trains. This was a very slow-moving train. There are sight lines but we shall, as a result of the inquiry, be checking whether those sight lines were unobscured. There are road indicators telling drivers to stop and give way to trains. It will be a matter for the inquiry as to what happened in this case.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that there was no hazard in this instance. I am also comforted by the news that the train driver was sufficiently concerned about the sheep that he warned, by tooting his horn, of the passage of radioactive material. I wish that were done for people, too.
I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that the dropping of a container from 30 ft assumes that any bridge, cliff or precipice is limited to that height. There are a number in this country which are considerably higher than that.
The Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) that he considered that such flasks were proof against any kind of attack. Is he aware that, when a flask of this nature was stored in east London, members of Friends of the Earth walked on to a passenger platform with a rocket launcher, that they pointed the launcher at the container of radioactive material and that they shot a photograph of the container from behind, showing the rocket launcher in the


foreground with the flask clearly in its sights? British Rail's answer to the problem posed was that anyone could do that so long as they bought a platform ticket. Is the——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his question directly to the private notice question and not conduct a debate on the matter generally.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to you for that guidance, Mr. Speaker.
If the Minister is aware of that incident, he must be aware of the possibility of a repetition, which could be real rather than enacted. What does he intend to do to ensure that a real incident of that type does not take place?

Mr. Mitchell: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that does not arise in the case of this impact in this part of Kent. If he wants to ask a question about the carriage of nuclear waste by British Rail in various parts of the country and about the safety aspects, I shall be happy to give him a full reply if he will table a question or write to me.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, at Ramsden dock, irradiated nuclear fuel is imported from Japan and transported by rail to Windscale and Sellafield? Will he make inquiries, as I have, and look at the containers, which are huge in relation to the miniscule amounts of fuel that are carried? For a quantity of fuel the size of this copy of the Official Report, a flask several metres square weighing about 50 tonnes is used. In other words, will my hon. Friend make inquiries of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the main operators, to assure himself, as I have been assured, that the transportation of such material by

these flasks makes for the utmost safety and that the concern of hon. Members, which is legitimate, is perhaps unfounded?

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given the House the benefit of the investigations which he has made. That confirms what has been said in the House previously, that the utmost precautions are taken in the movement of spent fuel by British Rail or by any other means within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon Hughes: While recognising that this was a minor incident, one that probably only marginally justifies detaining the House this morning for this time, may I ask the Minister to accept that one lesson that may be learned is that when nuclear fuel is transported there should always be a barrier, that it should be down when fuel passes and that trains should be scheduled at times when there is the least passenger traffic and therefore the least risk to traffic on roads which cross railway lines?

Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that the inspector will have such matters in mind when considering his report.

Mr. Tom Sackville: Will my hon. Friend agree that, if the facts of the present case are as reported—that the train was travelling at less than 5 mph and hooting its horn — the driver of the car concerned should be encouraged to re-examine his driving abilities, including his sight and hearing?

Mr. Mitchell: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. I understand that a senior citizen was driving the car at the time. It would be improper for me to make any comment in view of the fact that a police investigation of the accident is taking place.

Orders of the Day — Cycle Tracks Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Franks: An hour or so ago I started commenting on the proposed amendments to clause 3. In my innocence, being new here, as a matter of courtesy I gave way to various hon. Members who sought to question me. It was only when my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), in his usual inimitable style, had been making what I understood to be an intervention, his comments having lasted for perhaps eight minutes, that I realised that something was amiss.
Perhaps I should explain that my political experience prior to 9 June 1983 was in the realms of local government, where it is simple enough to pick up an agenda of proceedings and then, even as one of the most simple members in local government — and there are many simple members in local government — comprehend what is happening, including the process and priority of business.
If I had not been so indulgent in allowing hon. Members to make interventions, which I found subsequently were not interventions but contributions to a debate, but had instead continued with my points on the various parts of the amendment, it may be that the points made in quite a few of the interventions and speeches that followed the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North — I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed—would have been elucidated without the confusion caused not only to the House and the Strangers Gallery but me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North strayed so far and wide that he lost me on one or two occasions. He is an active member of the all-party cycling group of the House. On Second Reading and in Committee my hon. Friend gave me his whole-hearted support, and I am grateful to him for his contributions. I trust that, if I have not answered all his points, he will be as indulgent with me as I was with him.

Mr. Greenway: I should make it clear, with your consent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my points were made within the terms of the debate and the amendment, or I would not have been allowed to make them. I therefore cannot have strayed that far or that wide.

Mr. Franks: Unfortunately for my hon. Friend, my back is turned towards him. If that were not so, he would be aware that my comments were made with a smile not with a grimace.

Mr. Greenway: Thank you very much.

Mr. Franks: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) asked why it is necessary for the local authority to require the landowner to give written consent rather than the landowner having to lodge an objection. Several other hon. Members made that point during the past hour and a half. Having listened to all the contributions on that point, I am still of the firm opinion that hon. Members do not take full heed of those querying the amendment. The emphasis of the Bill is to improve the safety of cyclists, including the safety of pedestrians when they are involved with cyclists. Those who assisted me in drafting the Bill never intended that a cycle track would be designated to go through agricultural land.
There may be cases in rural areas when a local authority designates a footpath as a cycle track when the footpath links a village with its local school. It is beyond comprehension to envisage any local authority, acting within the realms of sanity, to designate cycle tracks in the middle of nowhere, going from nowhere to nowhere, through farm land. Having listened carefully to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North and others, I cannot accept that they have considered this aspect as a serious matter. It is legitimate and proper, if a local authority is minded to create a cycle track through a field of wheat, corn or other crop, for the onus to be on the local authority to seek out and obtain the consent of all those with a legal interest in the land. The onus to object should not be on the shoulders of those who have a legal interest in the matter.
I am sorry to make my argument so forcefully. As I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport, have pointed out, there will be an opportunity in another place to consider this point again if it is thought to be worthy of further consideration. I cannot accept that the amendment is other than a proper measure that should be made to cover a loophole that was unwittingly allowed to creep in during drafting and should never have been in the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) made my points in a different manner, and I am grateful to him. He appreciated that the provision of recreational facilities is not within the purport of the Bill. Those facilities may come about, but I emphasise that the aim of the Bill is to reduce the number of accidents. Last year 300 people were killed in road accidents, almost entirely in urban areas; 5,000 people were seriously injured in cycling accidents; a further 30,000 accidents were reported involving cyclists, and an estimated 30,000 unreported accidents involving cyclists occurred. More than 70 per cent. of the 6,000 people killed or seriously injured were persons under 15. I cited those figures on Second Reading, and I emphasise again that the purport of the Bill is to provide safety, not recreational facilities.
I appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood). I remind him that there will be an opportunity in another place to consider this matter. I hope that hon. Members will not misunderstand the Bill's intentions and seek to take matters further.
I shall pick up the threads of my speech at 10.24 am, when I was in the process of defining agricultural land. I was pursuing the points made in section 109 of the Agriculture Act 1947, which refers to land which, in the opinion of the Minister, should be used for agriculture. The section excludes,
land used as pleasure grounds, private gardens or allotment gardens
and in certain places,
land kept or preserved mainly or exclusively for the purposes of sport or recreation".
The section states:
'agriculture' includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy fanning and livestock breeding and keeping, the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land"—
hon. Members may ask me what is meant by osier land—
market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes".


Agriculture does not include forestry. A legal interest in land is defined so as not to include those with an interest in land which takes effect as an interest less than the tenancy from year to year. Legal interest would not, therefore, cover those with grazing or mowing licences for a specified period of the year, nor would it cover those with agreements for use of land for an interest less than year to year or those with licences to occupy land, which agreement or licence has been approved by the Minister under section 2 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.
11.30 am
I consider that the amendments give adequate protection when a footpath crosses agricultural land. I do not consider that we need to extend the protection to land that is used for forestry or to rural land that is not used for agricultural purposes. The rights to object to a conversion order that are enshrined in clause 3 will give adequate protection when it is proposed to convert footpaths across such land.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
'(1B) An order made under this section by a local highway authority—

(a) may be confirmed by the Secretary of State either in the form in which it was made or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit;
(b) may be confirmed by the authority as an unopposed order only in the form in which it was made.'.

No. 5, in line 5, leave out 'by local highway authorities' and insert
', submission and confirmation'.

No. 6, in page 3, leave out lines 9 to 14 and insert—

'(a) the publication of notice of the making of an order under this section and of its effect;
(b) the making and consideration of objections to any such order; and
(c) the publication of notice of the confirmation of any such order by the Secretary of State or by a local highway authority, and of the effect of the order as confirmed.'.

No. 7, in line 16, leave out from 'may' to end of line 22 and insert
'in particular make provision—

(a) for enabling the Secretary of State to cause a local inquiry to be held in connection with any order under this section submitted to him for confirmation;
(b) for the decision as to whether any such order should be confirmed, and, if so, as to the modifications (if any) subject to which it should be confirmed, to be made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose instead of by the Secretary of State;
(c) for any decision made by any such person in pursuance of paragraph (b) above to be treated, for the purposes of any provision of the regulations or this section, as a decision of the Secretary of State;

and subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (giving of evidence at, and defraying of costs, local inquiries) shall apply in relation to any local inquiry held in pursuance of paragraph (a) above as they apply in relation to a local inquiry which a Minister causes to be held under subsection (1) of that section.'.—[Mr. Franks.]

Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in line 30, leave out 'High Court' and insert
'Crown court or county court.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in line 31, leave out 'High Court' and insert
'Crown court or county court.'.

Mr. Bermingham: I said in Committee that I intended to raise this issue on Report and therefore it appears in the

amendments that we are now to discuss. Amendment No. 8 is small in content but important in context. I am saying, in effect, that objectors who have a right to ask for a review should be able to exercise that right in the most convenient and economic way. Currently, all such reviews within our judicial system are heard by the Divisional Court of the High Court. They take place in London and they are both expensive and time-consuming. It seems that there is no reason why such reviews cannot take place in the Crown courts in the same way as reviews of the decisions of justices in licensing applications.
Those of us who considered the Bill in Committee were told that we were enlightened by the Minister's response. We were told that Crown court and county court judges would not have the necessary experience to deal with reviews and that to direct them to those courts would be to introduce a slower judicial process, which would lead to costs being enhanced. I left the Committee with those solemn words ringing in my ears. I did not know whether to laugh or to cry.
Anyone who is a practitioner in law—I declare an interest as a practising solicitor of some years' standing, who has taken many cases to the Divisional Court on issues far more complicated than one would find in an objection to a cycle track order — will, similarly, not know whether to laugh or to cry at the Minister's response. There is no validity in the argument that has been advanced. In making an application to the Divisional Court, we are not entering a realm of great mystique. We are not entering a realm of such complicated law that it must, of necessity, be dealt with before that court.
Those who would appear in the Crown court or county court would be the same persons as now appear in the High Court. The same counsel would be briefed. The venue of the Crown court or the county court might well he rather more convenient to the objector and the parties involved, including the local authority and the citizen. It is perhaps out of little things that great revolutions grow. We can set a precedent in the Bill that will enable similar matters to be dealt with in the Crown courts. Incidentally, High Court judges who normally sit in the High Court sit also in the Crown courts. Those who opposed my argument in Committee either did not know that or were not told of it by the Minister. Perhaps they did not realise that we were talking about the same judges.
The judges who sit in the Crown courts or the county courts have all come through the same legal process of education as those who sit in the High Court. There is no great mystique and there is no extra degree of learning required in adjudicating whether an objector has a cause. In that sense the Crown court can serve as exactly the same appellate court as the High Court. There seems to be no substance or force in the objection to this simple and simplifying amendment to our legal procedures. If the amendment is agreed to, it will save costs and time. It will make review more readily available and accessible to the man in the street.
As a northern Member, I have an even greater fundamental objection to the arguments that have been advanced against me in Committee and elsewhere. It seems to have been forgotten that the north-west has the palatine courts of the Duchy of Lancaster, which are chancery courts in their own rights. Therefore, we have all the expertise north of Watford to deal with these issues in their entirety. Contrary to popular belief areas north of Watford are well versed in legal matters. Lawyers north


of Watford well understand the system and know how to operate within it. That is true whether we happen to be mere practitioners at the Bar or at the bench.
There seems to be some thought in the corridors of power that the judiciary north of Watford would not be able to cope. I remind those who take that view that many judges of the High Court practised north of Watford, were trained north of Watford and bring their expertise, so ably gathered north of Watford, to educate, enlighten and assist those who live south of Watford.
There is no validity in the objections that have been raised to the simple and small alteration that I propose. Perhaps this is an example of great oak trees developing from small acorns. We have an increasingly bureaucratic and automated society and it would be a good thing to set in motion the concept that judicial matters and administrative problems can be dealt with in tribunals other than the Divisional Court of the High Court. Let us state in this Bill, which we all welcome, that the reviews can be dealt with by the Crown courts that exist in every major town and city throughout the country. If we take that course, we shall be able to follow the precedent when we consider the next little Bill which contains appellate measures, including judicial review. Many more administrative problems could be dealt with at a local level and time and money could be saved. We could perhaps provide the people with a simpler, quicker, easier and cheaper way of, on occasions, challenging the bureaucracy of our system in the courts.
I do not know why the Government, the Attorney's Office or the Lord Chancellor's Office continue to object to my simple amendment. However, I say in open challenge to the Government that there is no mystique in the processes of review and that the Crown courts are capable of dealing with them cheaply, quickly and efficiently.

Mr. Franks: I wonder whether I could make a few general comments on the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) who has given great assistance with the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and this morning. I should declare that I, too, have an interest, indirectly, as a solicitor. I have considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member. Those of us who were present on Second Reading will recall that, almost without exception, those who took part in the debate, and there were many, made the same point.
Those who served in Committee and those who may have taken the opportunity to read the Committee's proceedings will be aware that the same point was made in Committee and that there was almost unanimous agreement on it. My prime interest is that the Bill should pass through its Report stage and receive a Third Reading. The point made by the hon. Member, while perfectly fair and legitimate, is subsidiary to the Bill's main purpose. The hon. Member will accept that that is the case.
I have sought and listened to the contrary points of view. I am not convinced that they have any validity. I say this as someone who has spent 25 years as a member of the legal profession. The prime duty of the House is to protect the rights of the individual who feels aggrieved and to give him the quickest, easiest, most effective and cheapest means of seeking redress. I do not believe that

anyone would challenge the fact that, in general terms, that would mean the county court as the modus as opposed to the convoluted procedures of the High Court, which are at times in the esoteric realms of another world. I do not want to see the main emphasis of the Bill—the safety of cyclists—in some way jeopardised by the hon. Member forcing the amendment to a vote. I said in connection with the discussions on agricultural land that when the Bill leaves the House that is not the end of the story. The Bill goes to another place where, in a different atmosphere, the points made legitimately by the hon. Member — I emphasise that half a dozen times—can be considered and, perhaps, the appropriate amendments made.
I ask the hon. Member, in the interests of the Bill's main purport — the safety of cyclists — to consider withdrawing the amendment, albeit that I and, I suspect, many others have the greatest sympathy with what he is seeking to achieve.

Mr. Snape: I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), and I confess to being somewhat puzzled by his speech. I had no difficulty with the earlier part of it. I do not know whether he will eventually reach the dizzy heights of the Government Front Bench—if that is his ambition, good luck to him—but he has the jargon off already.
The hon. Member started by saying that he had considerable sympathy with, in my view, the excellent amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). It is the type of phraseology that those of us who spend a great deal of time in the Minister's company will be aware is used frequently by her. Such a phrase normally prefaces a refusal to accept the amendment with which one has considerable sympathy. Sure enough, that was the burden and thrust of the conclusions of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness.
11.45 am
I must again—gently, as is my wont—chide the hon. Member about the procedures of the House and the other place. The purpose of this stage of the Bill is to put right some of the matters that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel were not put right at previous stages. To say that the safety of cyclists would be jeopardised if my hon. Friend put his excellent amendment to a vote is not just exaggeration but, unless the hon. Member has information that I do not possess, untrue. There would be little point in a Report stage if the promoter declined to accept any amendments, no matter how necessary they might be, because parliamentary procedures dictated that when the Bill had completed its passage through this House it went along the Corridor to another place. For once the hon. Member was on thin ice.

Mr. Franks: rose——

Mr. Greg Knight: rose——

Mr. Snape: I am in some difficulty, because I want to give way to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, but the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has shown that he wants to intervene. I will give way to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness first.

Mr. Franks: I am sure that the hon. Member will not take it amiss if I remind him of a comment that he made in Committee about my hon. Friend the Minister of State:


When the Minister says that she is sympathetic to an amendment it normally means that she does not intend to accept it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 11 April 1984; c. 12.]
That may be the hon. Member's opinion. Unlike him, I am extremely new to the House, and I may be extremely naive, but when I say that I am sympathetic, I mean that I am sympathetic, nothing more and nothing less, and with no ulterior motives.

Mr. Snape: I am afraid that my semi-humorous and fairly innocuous remark has provoked near rage from the hon. Member. He rightly charged me with my lack of originality.

Mrs. Chalker: Standard jargon.

Mr. Snape: Yes, it is standard jargon. I am afraid that all too often Opposition spokesmen slip into the formalised, standard jargon in the way that I have this morning.
I accept that what the hon. Member says is true and that he has considerable sympathy with the amendment. He should not fall out with his hon. Friend the Minister of State but he should tell her that the amendment is eminently sensible and that he, as the promoter of the Bill, is prepared to accept it.
When we debated this matter in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South and other members of the Committee made four valid points in support of the amendment.

Mr. Greg Knight: Although many of us have sympathy with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), is not the important question whether the Bill is the correct vehicle by which to seek to change the way in which decisions of the Executive are challenged? I think it is not. It is a fair argument that perhaps the matter should be allowed to be challenged in the county courts and Crown courts, but that is surely for wider debate in relation to many other issues and should not be tagged on to the Cycle Tracks Bill. Would the hon. Gentleman direct his comments to that point?

Mr. Snape: Now I am in even more difficulty, because, of course, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is a solicitor. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness described himself as an out-of-work conveyancer, so I presume that he is also a solicitor. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South is a distinguished practitioner at the Bar. [Interruption.] I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. He is a solicitor. I thought that he was a barrister. I hesitate to reply directly to the point just made by the hon. Member for Derby, North. If we are to have a wide-ranging debate about the proper place in which to challenge the decisions of the Executive, I can assure the House that here is one ex-railwayman who will not be too anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you happen to be in the Chair.
I suggest that the four reasons that I mentioned in Committee are as valid now as they were then. Perhaps they are now even more valid, in the light of the comments of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness. As I remember those points, the first related to the time factor. If it is necessary to take something to the High Court, obviously a considerable period will elapse between the grievance arising and its resolution in the High Court. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens,

South and I made the point that, for the ordinary person—the man in the street, the objector to the making of any order under the Bill—the ordeal of appearing in the High Court is much greater than the ordeal of appearing in a lower court.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South made a valid point in Committee concerning local knowledge of the matters in question. Again, I risk the contempt of active members of the legal profession when I talk of the necessity for local knowledge before such decisions are arrived at. They, presumably, are on a higher plane when they talk of the interpretation of the law. The hon. Member for Derby, North spoke of challenging the powers of the Executive. I should have thought that, in an area such as this, where we are concerned with the making or otherwise of orders relating to cycle tracks, such matters would be better dealt with in a lower court, where there would be some local knowledge of the area, the people and the problems involved.
There is also the not unimportant question of cost. I have a limited knowledge of the legal profession I have the privilege of rubbing shoulders with members of the profession in this House, but apart from that I usually give members of the legal profession a very wide berth. The exchange of letters or even an unwise if casual word with a member of the legal profession is all too often followed by a substantial bill, and within seven days a threatening letter which one knows, as one opens the envelope with a sinking heart, will add even greater cost to the original bill. My hon. Friend's proposal that these matters should be dealt with elsewhere than in the High Court seems to me — particularly in regard to cost — to be unchallengeable.
I am sure that the Minister of State will tell us that there has been long and detailed consultation with the legal luminaries in the Government, but that, alas, although she is sympathetic towards the principle, it has not proved possible to accept the amendment. Such an explanation—if I might prejudge it in that way—might be good enough for her hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, and I mean no disrespect to him in saying that. In addition to being responsible for promoting this excellent Bill, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looks forward to his own future career. I am sure that his rise will be swift and meteoric. Nevertheless, I urge him, even if he prejudices that future meteoric rise to power, to be convinced on this occasion of the excellent argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South, and to reflect on the fact that occasionally a little defiance of one's own party's Front Bench does one's long-term promotion prospects no harm.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I enter the fray with a little trepidation, although there are probably few things more gently pleasurable than this sort of Friday debate; one could be cycling instead of simply talking about it on a day such as this. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) may not know that, although I cannot claim the 25 years' experience of the legal profession of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), I shall soon be clocking up 10 years' experience, although the past year has been without active participation in the profession. At least, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will not be getting any bills from me. That must be one consolation for him, although he may do things that will bring him bills from other quarters.
The constitution of our country and laws of historic importance are often shaken to their foundations by little things. Most hon. Members will recall that one of the most famous cases of all time—and one of the most famous principles of all time—arose as a result of an errant snail at the botton of an ordinary ginger beer bottle. People in the real world may well be surprised to find this little measure detaining us on a matter of constitutional importance, but there could be a proposal by a little district or county council—or a London borough—to convert a footpath into a cycle track. There might then be an objection to regulations proposed by the Secretary of State. If that needs to be challenged elsewhere than in the High Court, it may be an enormous question to which the Attorney-General and the other Law Officers of the Crown and their officials will say, with the weight of the law behind them, "No, this is not possible."

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us about the snail?

Mr. Hughes: That is the first occasion on which the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has asked my advice on a matter of politics and law at the same time. I will happily talk to him about the snail over lunch.
We all have great respect for the Minister of State but it is surprising to find what she said in her contribution in Committee at column 11 in reference to the question of fees, raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). She was talking about the costs which arise when people go to court and had referred to the difference between going to the High Court and going to a county court. I do not accept, by the way, that people who cycle round Hyde Park corner have any fear about going to the High Court. I am sure that they are fully capable of dealing with all the disciplines and authority of the High Court or the Queen's Bench Division. The hon. Lady said—

Mr. Snape: I assure the hon. Gentleman that people who cycle round Carters Green in West Bromwich would, like me, be terrified at that prospect.

Mr. Hughes: Some of us might be terrified at having to find our way to Carters Green so that we could cycle round it.
The Minister said that county court judges do not have the appropriate experience at present, and that she suspected that it would take them a long time to amass it. I would hate to think that the poor county court judges up and down the land might regard it as beyond them to cope legislatively and judicially with objections challenging the Secretary of State's regulations.
The merits of the argument are on the side of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, who says that on a matter of relatively local and minor importance it is appropriate to go to a local court, with a judge who knows the local area and who can quickly acquire the expertise to deal with the matter. The cost would be less, the procedure simpler and there would be fewer legislative problems. I understand that that would breach a constitutional principle. I understand that when one is challenging a decision of the Executive, a counterweight of equal strength and authority is normally required—the High

Court. However, I hope that as a result of this Bill we shall be able to make that breach now, in the interests of common sense.

Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how that relates to the case of Donoghue v Stevenson?

Mr. Hughes: I relish this unusual interest in my opening remarks. I do not want to keep the House in suspense. No doubt hon. Members want to hear what the Minister has to say about the case as well.

Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure whether this is a point of order or an intervention, but I seem to have been done out of my free lunch.

Mr. Hughes: Occasionally I am told off for overstaying my welcome and speaking longer than Liberal party Members are supposed to speak. I must point out that I extend my remarks only at the instigation of hon. Members who are fascinated by the subject. The hon. Gentleman's lunch ought to be dependent on the outcome next week of a certain by-election in which his wife is standing. If his wife wins, the hon. Gentleman will be able to afford to buy me lunch. We can postpone lunch until then.
Donoghue v Stevenson was a case concerning an occasion when a snail fell into a ginger beer bottle. The duty to one's neighbour was established as referring back to those who were responsible for filling the bottle, because they could have foreseen that one day someone might drink the ginger beer and be harmfully affected because it tasted of snail and worse things besides. The manufacturers had a duty not to be negligent. I shall not go into all the legal implications for all the solicitors around me who might encourage me to go through the head note and all the pages of the leading judgment, incidentally given by someone who went to the same school as me, and who was one of the few really eminent persons that the school produced, although I might be shot by the school for saying that. That person was Lord Atkin.
The relevance of the point is this. We want to be able to challenge the Executive in the county court, which is appropriate. Today the Minister may be constrained just to be sympathetic, but I hope that she will nudge the Attorney-General and others, saying that it does not matter if it is a little point which forces a change in a major constitutional principle, and now is always better than tomorrow. This is an appropriate time to do so. I hope that the Minister will accept today the argument in favour of doing it soon. If she cannot, I hope that once the Bill has passed through the House of Commons and the other place we shall be able to change the legislation and ultimately make the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, to make sure that if someone wants to change a footpath into a cycle track and it is suggested that it is not being done in the right way the objection can be made down the road at the nearest court. Thus, one would not have to wait for the case to come before one, two or three judges in the High Court, with procedure hardly suitable for a relatively minor change in the provisions for cyclists. Simple procedures are in the interests of all cyclists, and they would support them. I hope that as a Parliament we shall be able to come down on the side of common sense before long.

Mrs. Chalker: On Second Reading I described myself as a cycle-friendly Minister. I repeat that now because my


concern, which I think is the concern of every hon. Member who has spoken on the amendments, is that we get the Cycle Tracks Bill into action.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) for the further opportunity to discuss this matter, because it has allowed me not only to look at what he and other hon. Members said in Committee, but to consider the implications of other changes that we have already made and are in the process of making on Report. I shall return to that matter.
The hon. Gentleman's amendments refer to the
Crown court or county court.
Those words are to replace "High Court". I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that there is not a choice between the Crown court or the county court and the High Court, but there is a choice between only the county court and the High Court. That is because the Crown court deals with criminal matters. We are not talking about a challenge to the Executive concerning criminal matters, so it would be inappropriate to insert "Crown court" in place of "High Court".
On a purely technical note, the hon. Gentleman's amendments are defective. I say to him in all genuineness that I know what he is trying to achieve and I am not being personally critical. All that I am saying is that I advise the House of the status of the amendments, which is not quite right.

Mr. Bermingham: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman before coming to the bull point that everyone has missed.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the Crown court deals not just with criminal cases? It is also the appellate court on, for example, some aspects of matrimonial matters, affiliation cases and so on, and also in respect of certain licensing matters. Perhaps the Minister will concede that those who instruct her have forgotten the broader use of the Crown court since the Beeching report in 1968, which set up that new division as a division of the High Court system.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that I said that the Crown court deals largely with criminal matters. If I left out the word "largely", I apologise. I am aware that matrimonial matters go to a Crown court on certain occasions, as do other matters, but a purely civil matter, such as challenge to the Executive, with which the amendments are concerned, would not be appropriate in the circumstances in which Crown courts are used.
The position has been much changed by amendments passed by the Committee and a few still under consideration today. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which we have passed, have amended the Bill in respect of a majority of the challenges that relate to the provision of cycle tracks. All hon. Members were happy to accept them. I am sure that they are also happy with amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. Those who object to the highway authority's proposals to create shared-use facilities will have the chance to raise their objections at a local public inquiry before an inspector, after which a decision is made by the Secretary of State. There is now the possibility, which seems acceptable to all, for proper challenge about cycle tracks to be clearly set down in public inquiry fashion.
The legal challenge under the amendments is not just an extension of the appeal procedure put into the Bill today. That is why the situation is different from that on which I spoke in Committee. Unwithdrawn objections to conversion orders being made by the local highway authority will thus be thoroughly considered, so that is not the burden of the argument.
Legal challenge to the decision of the Secretary of State to confirm an order with or without modifications will rest not merely on the local issues, but on whether the Secretary of State followed the required procedures in making his decision or whether he so misdirected himself as to contravene the rules of natural justice — for example, by failing to consider relevant evidence, or in some other way. That is the matter on which we have been concentrating for some time.
If a challenge is against the local highway authority's confirmation of an unopposed order, it is likely to involve questions whether the making of the order was properly advertised, the consent of all those with a legal interest in agricultural land was obtained, and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said that he was concerned to protect the individual, and I fully share that concern. That is why he consulted me and the Department about his amendment No. 2 and the consequential amendments to provide that protection for the individual.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) put his finger on the main issue in relation to amendments Nos. 8 and 9 when he fairly made the point that challenges to the decisions of the Executive go far wider than the Cycle Tracks Bill. I appreciate that there is a move for change in the way in which such challenges are dealt with in the courts, but a major legal change of that kind requires a proper legal vehicle to carry it through in consideration of the law as a whole rather than in an amendment to a Bill of this kind. I appreciate that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South is anxious to nibble away at the corner of the question so as to get a foothold in changing something far larger.

Mr. Snape: What a metaphor!

Mrs. Chalker: I apologise for the mixed metaphor, but I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) well understands the point. The hon. Gentleman, as an ex-railwayman, would no doubt resist the idea of altering the gauge of one small stretch of track while leaving the rest on standard gauge. In terms of the standard gauge track for the law as a whole, I am anxious that the House should not decide to alter one small section today as a move towards changing the whole.

Mr. Snape: Staying with the railway metaphor, as this is a comparatively uncontroversial and perhaps even relatively unimportant part of the law, perhaps we could regard the Bill as the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch line of the law and leave the rest on the standard 4 ft 8½ in.

Mrs. Chalker: Whether we talk in feet or metres about the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch line or the main line from Euston to the west midlands, the hon. Gentleman well understands my point. As I attempted to explain in pseudo-railway language, it is established practice that challenges to the decisions of the Executive are made in the High Court. The House may decide to change that at


some stage, but any proposal to do so raises fundamental issues about the way in which challenges to the validity of decisions of the Executive are considered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North said, this Bill cannot be a suitable vehicle for such a change. Quite apart from our discussions in Committee, when the Bill was in a different state, I believe that to misuse the Bill in that way would be a retrograde step. We may argue about fees and costs for the appellant—and views and experiences of the county courts differ around the country — but it would not be right to use this Bill to start to change the procedure for challenges to the Executive.
We have all said that we want the Bill to work and we want objectors to have the right of appeal through the public inquiry system. That is now being included in the Bill. We have all accepted that we wish to keep costs down and to ensure that the procedure works properly. I believe that that can be achieved through the Bill in its present form without the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. We have examined the hon. Gentleman's suggestion carefully since the Committee stage, and I recognise that this may be something of a Stevenson's snail, but I do not believe that the Bill should be used as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I must therefore advise the House that, in terms of propriety and respect for the law, the change that the hon. Gentleman seeks and with which some of my hon. Friends have expressed sympathy should not be dealt with in the Bill, and I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: I have listened carefully to the comments on the principle that I sought gently to put before the House with regard to the venue for the hearing of objections. The point has been well taken and I believe that the argument is overwhelming that such challenges should lie in courts other than the High Court. I accept that this Bill may not be the correct vehicle to set about what is not a very revolutionary change, being merely the realisation that in the 20th century the Strand is not necessarily the fount of all knowledge and that knowledge exists throughout the country. Accordingly, I shall shortly make it clear that the Government Chief Whip can breathe easily and that there is no need for the panic that has been going on for the past half hour.
Perhaps Cicero was right when he said that nothing should be considered impossible before it comes to pass. I certainly take that view. Perhaps the marker that I and others have put down in relation to this Bill will serve as a pointer for the future to the effect that we do not accept that the fount of all wisdom for challenging the Executive is to be found solely in the Strand and that we intend to press the point on future occasions. In that way we hope to bring justice—the basis of our judicial system—to the people, where they live and in a way that they understand and, with luck, at a price that they can afford. That being so, I do not propose to press my amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

No. 10, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'made' and insert 'confirmed'.

No. 11, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'by order' and insert
'(subject to and in accordance with the provisions of subsections (IB) to (6) above) by order made by them and either—

(a) submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State, or

(b) confirmed by them as an unopposed order,'.

No. 12, in page 4, leave out from 'section' to second 'with' in line 5.—[Mr. Franks.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Franks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have necessarily been considering parts of the Bill in some detail. It is now appropriate to stand back and consider it again as a whole.
The Bill proposes a range of measures intended to assist in the provision and protection of cycle tracks. In doing so, it seeks to implement the proposals for legislative change contained in the cycling policy statement of January 1982. The Bill includes proposals for the exclusion of mopeds from cycle tracks and for making it an offence to drive or park a motor vehicle on a cycle track. Defences are specified. The Bill proposes a new simplified procedure for converting paths to cycle tracks, and provides for contested conversions to be considered by the Secretary of State. It allows the highway authorities to provide and maintain barriers on any cycling track which is maintained at the public expense and to undertake whatever work they think necessary in the interests of safety to separate those using the cycle track from those using an adjacent maintainable footpath or footway, and to alter or remove barriers or works. The Bill proposes to give a right to recover compensation for damage consequent upon the undertaking of work to give effect to a footpath order or the erection of barriers or works, and to give a right to compensation for any reduction of value of an interest in land arising as a consequence of the coming into operation of a footpath conversion order. Disputes are to be referred to the Lands Tribunal. It is proposed that the provisions of the Bill should extend to Crown land.
Finally, I thank those hon. Members who have taken part in the debates on the Bill during its progress through the House. I trust that the Bill will increase the safety of cyclists and their enjoyment without damaging the legitimate concerns of others. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport and, through her, her officials, who have been guiding and helping me in presenting the Bill and bringing it to its present stage. I am extremely grateful both to the Minister and her officials.
I trust that the House will join me in wishing my hon. Friend many happy returns. It is her birthday this weekend. I ask hon. Members to join me in presenting her, as a birthday present, with the Third Reading of the Bill, which I know is very dear to her heart.

Mr. Bermingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) on an excellent Bill which has the support of many hon. Members, including myself. Debates on the Bill have ranged over many subjects, one of which I wish to return to now. I am concerned about the construction of the cycles that are to use the cycle tracks created under the Bill. On Second Reading, during a speech by the Minister, I intervened to refer to the construction and nature of the lights on cycles.
Even on cycle tracks, where cycles can pass to and fro in relative freedom from the problems created by motor


vehicles and mopeds, problems can arise from the way in which lights are made. When I was younger, our bicycle lamps were run on dynamos. The Minister told us on Second Reading that the problem was that people began to steal the dynamos and that therefore cyclists had returned to the battery-driven lamp to illuminate both front and rear. Regrettably, the lamps on bicycles which vary in design and number, range from the impossible to see to the impossible to find. The safety of cyclists must be of paramount importance to us, and the Bill will do much to increase it. However, we must also consider the construction of the bicycle lamp and the amount of light that it provides in terms of candle power.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has referred to the type and luminosity of clothing. That is equally important, and it is a subject that we should perhaps consider now, when we are sending the Bill to another place. We should encourage local authorities to think about the question of cycling in urban and rural areas. Perhaps the creation of cycle tracks will encourage more people to use the bicycle for both pleasure and relaxation and in order to get from A to B. The use of bicycles is greatly in the interests of society from an energy point of view. With perhaps enhanced use of bicycles it is important to consider the safety of cyclists. I am not so blind as to be deluded into thinking that if we create cycle paths there will not be areas of road where motorised traffic and bicycles mix.
I welcome the Bill and hope that local authorities will use its provisions. I also hope that the Government will encourage them to use it. I hope that the Government will live up to the promises given by the Minister on Second Reading. I hope that local authorities will consider how the Bill can be used to enhance the safety of cyclists and the quality of life in their areas by creating cycle tracks which have the advantages mentioned by many hon. Members.
I return to where I started, on Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will encourage her colleagues to provide even greater sums of money for the education and training of young cyclists through the admirable scheme run by ROSPA. Such encouragement should form part of an overall package that will make cycling safer, more enjoyable and more available to the people.

Mr. Lilley: It was George Bernard Shaw, himself a notable cyclist, who said that following the advent of the motor car all cyclists fell into two categories—the quick and the dead. The Bill is designed to help alleviate the dangers of mixing different forms of transport. I welcome it, not least because I was delayed on my way to the House this morning by an accident between a powered two-wheel vehicle and a pedestrian at a point on the Embankment where there is limited pedestrian space and inadequate segregation. That accident illustrates clearly the problems associated with mixing different forms of transport without proper rules and regulations to guide them.
I can no longer declare an interest in the Bill as my bicycle was stolen a couple of years ago and has still not been returned. However, I understand that there are about 15 million people in Britain who have an interest in the Bill as they own bicycles. An important minority of people in my constituency have an interest in cycling and the provision of cycle tracks. They cycle despite the fact that St. Albans is rather more hilly than some neighbouring constituencies, as anyone who has passed by and seen the

abbey on the top of our magnificent hill will know. Cycling in my constituency is also impeded simply by the lack of cycle tracks, despite the efforts of their local proponents. Such lack is beginning to be made good as a result of their efforts. I pay special tribute to the work of Dr. Hook who ran the St. Albans cycle survey and first drew my attention to the Bill and its importance. He described the Bill as
an overdue and wholesome piece of legislation, fully in accordance with the thinking of the Department of Transport and welcomed by cyclists and local authorities alike.
I endorse that view. I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. Peter Wares who, under Friends of the Earth, has assumed responsibility for cyclists' interests and has campaigned for the provision of cycle tracks in the area.
Such tracks are slowly coming into being. This summer, there will be a track between Harpenden and St. Albans, but one of the problems to be resolved is that it starts on one side of the road in Harpenden and on the other side of the road in St. Albans. Perhaps there will be a meeting point in the middle. Another track along a railway route is also to be established. I imagine that the provision of cycle tracks would have been easier if the Bill had been on the statute book when those tracks were advocated by supporters of the use of bicycles in my constituency.
My enthusiasm for cycling, which caused me to acquire the bicycle which I lost, was ignited when I was in Washington several years ago. I wanted to see the city and told the people I was with that I intended to hire a car. They told me that that was impossible as Washington's one-way system leads motorists immediately into Virginia and that there was no way in which anyone other than a local inhabitant could get round Washington by car. I immediately thought that I would hire a bicycle. I telephoned the front desk of the plush hotel where I was staying—at other people's expense—and asked whether they could provide me with a bicycle. My request was greeted with incredulity and the remark, "I think you want the limousine department." None the less, I found a bicycle and discovered that Washington is the perfect city to see by bicycle. It is flat and it happens, for historic reasons, to have tracks all through it. Would that we had similar facilities in our cities and towns. I hope that the Bill will make those facilities more readily available.
When the Bill is passed, my hon. Friend the Minister will have responsibility for laying down rules and regulations, especially for consultation. I hope that she will ensure that the fullest consultation is required of all affected groups when it is proposed to change a footpath into a cycle track or to make it suitable for cyclists. I hope that she will also ensure that the blind and representatives of the blind and partially sighted are informed of such proposals, because they could be potential losers if some schemes are carried out. Since normal advertising in newspapers may not reach the blind, I hope that local authorities will think imaginatively about how to contact representatives of the blind. In St. Albans, and probably in many other constituencies, there is a talking newspaper that could be used to inform people of such proposals.
It is also important to inform cycling and rambling groups. In my constituency that is not always properly done, although the highways authority has officers responsible for considering cyclists' interests.
Another group that should be consulted when such changes are proposedd is parent-teacher associations, because the majority of bicycles are used by children going


to school. Parents have a special interest in ensuring that the proposed changes are safe. That is increasingly important as schools close because of falling rolls and children must travel further to reach school. In my constituency, cycle tracks might have to be provided from Wheathampstead, if the school there is closed, to other schools.
Another matter that has been pressed upon me by local advocates of cycle tracks is that when tracks are established—I hope that more will be established as a direct result of the Bill — it is vital to show their whereabouts by signposting and to link them with existing routes. In neighbouring constituencies, cycle tracks are not always signposted. One example is a track under an extremely dangerous roundabout of which many cyclists are unaware, with the result that they ride round the roundabout. I hope that provision will be made for, and that priority will be given to, signposting as well as the establishment of tracks.
In any transport development, we already require that the interests of cyclists be considered. That often means that they are considered but then ignored. I hope that some idea will be given of the percentage of money to be spent in any comprehensive transport development on the provision of facilities for cyclists. It may be a small percentage, but at least people would start off with the assumption that some money had to be spent on the cycling population and that they would have to argue for not spending it rather than for spending it. Those are some of the points which will become increasingly important as a direct result of the Bill if it becomes an Act.
I hope that the Minister and the advocates of the Bill will consider two or three minor points which occurred to me as the Bill has been debated. First, is any legislation necessary to encourage the conversion of old disused rail routes into footpaths and cycle tracks? That is a parallel facility which could be provided and which may need similar legislatiion. Secondly, where bridle paths need to be integrated with cycle and pedestrian footways, what legislation will be required? Thirdly, I made a serious point about shooting rights over agricultural land, although some might think that I did so frivolously. To what extent are shooting rights incorporated in the ownership of agricultural land, the owners of which have to be notified and have to give assent? Clearly, one does not want the owners of such shooting rights to be unaware that cyclists as well as pedestrians may in future be travelling across the land where they have those rights.
The Bill empowers the erection of barriers and segregation within tracks between pedestrians and cyclists. I hope that the interests of the blind will be taken into account, particularly by alerting local authorities to the fact that, wherever possible, such divisions should be by a change of level between the cycle track and the pedestrian footway. That would make it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to see without any barriers getting in the way of handlebars. It would also be much easier for blind people to identify and feel secure with than would be the case with painted lines or other visual markings between the cycle track and the pathway. I hope that any recommendations for the implementation of the Bill will be prominent in the Minister's advice to local authorities.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) for introducing the

Bill and steering it through the House. It is also indebted to the Minister for accepting and welcoming the Bill on behalf of the Government and to all those hon. Members who have taken an active interest in it at earlier stages. It will be welcomed widely, not only in my constituency by cyclists but by all those who will benefit from the sensible segregation of cyclists and pedestrians from motorised traffic. I welcome it and I hope that it will receive the support of the House and pass on to another place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Earlier this morning we were proceeding at a snail's pace. We are now going rapidly down hill successfully to the end of our proceedings.

Mrs. Chalker: I hope that the brakes work.

Mr. Hughes: I wondered what the brakes would be when the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said that the Minister would celebrate a birthday this weekend and that he was going to make a presentation to her. Earlier we were contemplating making the constitutional fabric of our society tumble by challenging the Executive in the county court. This time I thought that we were about to sing "Happy Birthday" in the Chamber of the House of Commons. That would certainly be without precedent, although it would also seem to be an equally good and pleasant idea. However, that was not to be and all that the hon. Gentleman was offering the Minister was the speedy passage of the Bill, which the Minister has so helpfully supported, to another place.
The Bill will make cycling safer and easier and thereby make transport by bicycle, particularly for short journeys, something that can more often occur because it will be done with confidence by people on bicycles to the advantage of the entire population. The more people who cycle, the fewer pollution, congestion and parking problems there are and generally the more pleasant life becomes, primarily in urban but also in rural areas of the country.
At this late stage in the debate, I wish to add two points to what the House has so far heard. One key result of this small step forward, which is a necessary and useful step, will be a reduction in the number of accidents caused to people on bicycles and to people on motorised two-wheel vehicles. The figures are quite surprising. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness will probably be aware of the figures that were given when evidence was presented to the Select Committee by the Minister and the Secretary of State. For every 100 million vehicle kms the death rate for car drivers is 0·7 and for the seriously injured the rate is 9. For motor cyclists, the figures are 13·2 deaths and 283 seriously injured. For cyclists the figure is 5·6 deaths, and 114·5 seriously injured. The Secretary of State said:
I think that those figures illustrate that the problem may well be more with motor cyclists and cyclists, and pedestrians for that matter, than it actually is with motor car drivers, bus drivers or goods vehicles. Certainly the change in recent years has been that the motor car, lorry and bus casualties are improving whereas the pedestrian and cycling casualties are nothing to be very pleased about.
It is tragic that old people particularly and others who believe they are going about their business in the safest possible way—on their feet or in a vehicle that does not have the dangers of a motor in front of it—often find themselves being injured. As the Secretary of State and the


Minister said, one of the problems even then is that many accidents are not reported. Thus, the figures underestimate considerably the number of accidents that occur.
Liberal Members welcome the Bill. I feel confident, as I think do all hon. Members who have participated in the debate, that one result will be a reduction in the number of accidents, many of which can debilitate people and reduce their mobility for life, which are occasioned at present by cycle users, pedestrians and motorised transport users taking the same routes and getting in each other's way. It is my belief that it should also result in an increased use of the bicycle throughout the country.
The figures are interesting. The Cyclists Touring Club tells us that cycling in Great Britain in terms of distances cycled — nobody will do the multiplication, but it is presented in this way and thus comparisons can be made—has fallen from 1952, when it was at its peak, the figure being 23 times 109 kms, when cycling accounted for approximately 25 per cent. of all distances travelled, to a low of 3·4 times 109 kms in 1974. Since 1974, the national figure has risen considerably, particularly for local journeys, and notably so in London. It is encouraging that in this city, part of which I represent, where one would imagine cycling to be the least acceptable form of transport because of the hazards and the heavy traffic, there has been a cycle use increase of about 20 per cent. per year in the past four or five years. Cycling now makes up approximately 4 per cent. of all trips. The interesting additional statistic that is thrown in is that cycles comprise 25 per cent. of all vehicle flows at some major junctions. I did not realise that they were that thick on the ground, but that is the trend. The Bill will assist in that trend to the general advantage of everybody.
When, early this morning, I discovered that I did not have any cornflakes, I set out to cross the Old Kent road hoping that a shop on the opposite side would sell me some, but it was too early even for the shops there to be open—evidence of my exceptional diligence in rising early on Friday mornings. It took me a considerable time to cross the road. Whenever I thought that it was safe to cross, because there were no cars or lorries, a motor bike or bicycle would shoot past. Particularly in urban areas they can be the hidden danger, especially when large vehicles are not on the roads.
The Bill will, hopefully, get some of that traffic into places where it can be anticipated. In other words, it will take this form of traffic off the roads, allowing cycle tracks to be safer for those who ride and footpaths and roads to be safer for pedestrians and drivers of vehicles generally. For cyclists, there will not be the potholes and other hazards which now exist on the roads.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness on getting a Bill so far in his first Session as a Member. His Bill is greatly welcomed by the Liberal party, as it is by all parties and by a large number of present cyclists and those who, as a result of it, will become cyclists. It is to the advantage of all.

Mr. Tracey: I join hon. Members in all parts of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and in welcoming the Bill. In the time that we have known my hon. Friend, we have grown to realise that he is a most thoughtful man, and

this Bill is proof of that characteristic; it is a thoughtful and useful piece of legislation which will be greatly welcomed on the statute book.
Cycling as a recreation and useful means of transport has been growing apace in recent years, and it has been supported in a populist way by some eminent politicians. For example, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), is a notable cyclist who has appeared in advertisements encouraging people to cycle. He is regularly seen pedalling hard through the streets of London and, no doubt, further afield, too. I was pleased, the day following a certain transport strike, to see the Minister of State, Department of Transport, pictured on the back page of The Times on her bicycle. She, too, used that means of transport to reach her office.

Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was a fortunate coincidence that a photographer was present on that occasion?

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend is a person of such attraction that notice was bound to be taken of her cycling exploits, and her picture brightened up my copy of The Times that day.
I applaud the popularity of cycling because it increases fitness and is a convenient form of transport. We now see on our streets all sizes of cyclists and riders. We have come a long way from the days of the penny farthing and the boneshaker. Today—this is certainly the case in my home—there is much talk of cycling as people make comparisons between Boxers, Burners and BMXs, and advertisements in the newspapers tell of a whole range of racing, folding and other bicycles. There is no doubt, therefore, that this area requires serious consideration by Parliament.
I join with the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) in stressing the safety aspect. I welcome the amount of attention that is being paid to more visible clothing for cyclists, such as luminous belts, and I welcome the wearing of crash helmets by cyclists who ride on some of the more busy roads in the capital. Because safety must play a key part in our consideration of cycling, the Bill will contribute greatly to safety. There is no doubt that, if we are to move with the growth in cycling, we must co-ordinate provisions for cyclists to ride safely.
I welcome the Government's consultative paper and the cycling policy statement of 1982. I believe that I am right to say that the Bill reflects many of the points made by cycling, safety and other organisations in response to those Government initiatives. I hope that the Bill will progress through the House and the other place.
The Bill's approach is right in stating that the control of and initiatives on cycling tracks should be as local as possible. I do not believe that we need great regional initiatives by the metropolitan councils. The GLC has, in another piece of scaremongering, been telling cyclists that when the GLC is abolished cycling in London will suffer. I do not subscribe to that idea. I believe that authorities such as mine in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames will do all they can to use the Bill's provisions to encourage safe, effective cycling in their areas. I am sure that that will be the case across the country.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness on bringing it to the House.

Mr. Wood: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) on bringing the Bill forward and getting it to this stage so successfully. I am sure that the legislation will be widely welcomed. My hon. Friend referred to my constituency in his speech on Second Reading. Stevenage, like other new towns, has good provision of cycle tracks but, nevertheless, that has not provided a full solution to all the problems. Over the years, many accidents have occurred in Stevenage involving crashes between mopeds and pedal cycles. I therefore especially welcome the changes in the legislation in that regard.
I am always worried when my children press me to buy a new bicycle for them. On 2 January 1984 my son acquired a new bicyle, and on 3 January I received a telephone call saying that he had been struck down by a car while riding on his bicycle on a large roundabout in the new town of Bracknell. It is overwhelmingly important to encourage the segregation of different types of transport. This is a matter not just of increased numbers of cars, and so on, travelling faster. During the past 20 to 40 years, the nature of the roads supporting such traffic has changed radically. Typically, new towns contain a multitude of large roundabouts. Although such roundabouts might be ideal for car safety, they are certainly not ideal for cyclists. All too often cyclists have to emerge from the special provision that has been made for them to negotiate roundabouts, when they are at risk. It will be much easier for local authorities to make provision for cyclists when the Bill is enacted, and that is greatly to be welcomed.
It is important that there should be signposting for cycle tracks. Many of us are familiar with the routes that we use when journeying by bus or motor car, but when we embark on a cycle track we do not necessarily know the safe routes that may be available. I hope that local authorities will provide better facilities for cyclists in and around towns and that they will ensure that cyclists can easily see where they should travel if they are to be safe and separated from motor traffic
The need for such a legislative change should always be examined. I suspect that we legislate too much but in this instance I think that there is a great need to place this measure on the statute book. I believe that there will be an increasing use of bicycles over the coming years. This will happen because of two major factors. First, the cost of fuel will gradually encourage more and more use of bicycles for journeys to work that are relatively short and, we hope, straightforward once the provisions set out in the Bill are implemented. Secondly, there will be increasing encouragement for people to use bicycles for their own personal health and fitness. It is so much better to get some exercise on a bicycle rather than travelling a short distance to work by public transport, providing that one is not likely to be struck down in the process.
The Bill will enable much better and safer provision to be made more easily by local authorities and I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness on piloting the Bill to this stage.

Mr. Greg Knight: Cycling is not a new phenomenon; nor is organised cycling. Cycling has been with us for well over 100 years and it has developed from being something

of a novelty—we have all seen illustrations of early bicycles such as boneshakers and penny farthings—into an inexpensive, healthy and interesting pastime. Cycling declined after the second world war but in recent years there has been a considerable increase in its popularity. It is therefore appropriate that we consider the provision that is made for cyclists.
About 1 million cycles were sold per annum in 1980 and the latest available figures tell us that nearer 2 million cycles are now being sold each year. There has been a remarkable increase in cycling activity in recent times. I accept that cycling is perhaps somewhat too energetic for many hon. Members on both sides of the House but it has undoubted attractions; it is quiet and cheap and does not damage the environment. It provides valuable access to the countryside for many who would otherwise not have the resources to reach it.
Cycling has drawbacks and it is right that we should examine some of them. The most serious drawback is the element of danger that undoubtedly accompanies it. It is right that steps are taken. I believe that the Bill will, perhaps only modestly, improve cyclists' safety.
I understand that cycle usage is growing at about 15 per cent. a year, but the important point is that the accident rate is growing much faster. Cyclists are five or six times more likely to be involved in accidents than other road users. That is a disturbing statistic. In addition, because cyclists are not protected and do not have the safety of a seat belt or a body shell, when they are involved in accidents they suffer worse injuries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said, about 300 cyclists are killed every year. Just as alarming, more than 20,000 people are injured each year, one third of them children. Those figures are unacceptable and I am sure that the House will welcome any steps that seek to reduce the dangers faced by cyclists.
There are other benefits, apart from safety considerations, in making provision for cyclists. In congested areas, the pedal cyclist often travels as fast as a motor vehicle but he occupies only one fifteenth of the space. It makes sense therefore to encourage greater use of cycles, and I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards doing that.
The Bill gives local authorities the power to convert footpaths into cycle tracks. I do not object to that. Many local authorities may, after the Bill is enacted, decide to implement their own cycling policy. I hope that, when doing so, they will cast their nets as wide as possible and involve those who are interested in these matters and have studied cyclists' needs — for example, local cycling groups. I happen to represent part of a city that has an active cycling group which has already considered ways in which cycle ways can be brought into use in my part of the country. That is to be welcomed.
When deciding whether a footpath is suitable for use by cyclists, I hope that local authorities will draw upon the expertise and enthusiasm of local cycling groups, and the police, with their knowledge of local potential dangers. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister envisages local authorities casting their net as wide as possible to take advice from those groups which plainly have something important to contribute.
I welcome the Bill. I believe that it will reduce accidents and encourage new cyclists to take up this healthy outdoor occupation. The Institution of Highways and Transportation, in a recent report, said:
Cyclists' safety should not depend on cycling in the gutter.


It should not. Appropriate provision should be made for cyclists and I believe that the Bill will facilitate that.

Mr. Snape: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) on successfully piloting this legislation to this stage.
Both sides of the House will welcome the fact that this matter, which has received a disgracefully low priority from successive Governments over the years, is at least to be considered. The fact that there is to be some expenditure, no matter how limited, is to be welcomed. I am not sure whether I support the view expressed by one Conservative Member that one of the reasons for the renaissance of cycling—if that is the right term—is that it is supported by various prominent politicians. I cannot help reflecting that there are certain hon. Members on each side of the House—it would be easy to name them but for my own peace of mind and safety I shall not—who, if they thought that they would get their photographs in the newspapers, would be happy to ride out of New Palace Yard on a circus one-wheel bicycle, wearing a red nose and juggling three cans of Heinz beans. If that were to happen, passing pedestrians and tourists would be in great danger of being mowed down. The fact that cycling is being supported by certain prominent politicians — indeed, it was supported by the father of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—is not necessarily a reason for us to support legislation such as this. There are many better reasons for doing so.
I know that in a Third Reading debate one is supposed to talk only about matters that are in the Bill, but I hope that I shall he allowed to say that, while we obviously support the provisions of the Bill—indeed, some greater support for cyclists and cycling is more than welcome—there are some responsibilities that should properly fall on cyclists, and a minority of cyclists continually ignore them.
I appreciate that cycling in London is all too often a dangerous business. I also appreciate that through the Bill there is some hope of getting the segregation of cyclists from other road users that we all believe to be essential. But that is no excuse for the minority of cyclists to whom I have referred treating traffic signals as if they did not apply to them, cycling through crowds of people on pedestrian crossings as though those people did not exist, and riding at night without lights, to the danger not only of themselves but of other road users. Now that the rights of cyclists are being recognised in this measure I hope that the minority of cyclists who flout the law will become more aware of their duties and obligations.
In congratulating the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness I also congratulate the Minister of State, on whose delicate shoulders these matters all too often fall. I do not know whether she would wish me to join her hon. Friends in congratulating her on her birthday this weekend. It is only when one reaches my great age that such congratulations are not always readily accepted. However, the Opposition are happy to join in congratulating her.
The Bill is a welcome step towards giving proper recognition not only to the recreation of cycling but to the fact that it is an essential form of commuting for many people. One hopes that the Bill will be the forerunner of legislation that will assist cycling and cyclists even more.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: You will no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, recall the writings of Sophocles, who considered that
The ideal condition would be, I admit, that men should he right by instinct. But since we are all likely to go astray the reasonable thing is to learn from those who can teach".
Hon. Members have learnt much from the teachings of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the excellent work that he has undertaken in piloting through the Cycle Tracks Bill. He has received assistance from colleagues in the House and people working with the Minister of State who, equally, should be congratulated on the work that she has done to assist my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend has taken an initiative, the path for which was paved in the Department of Transport consultation paper on cycling in 1981. It is right to emphasise strongly how much importance should be attached to that consultation paper. It was the groundwork from which the Bill emanated. In that paper, questions for consultation were clearly posed. It asked how the Government's advice to local authorities on provisions for cyclists could be improved. It also asked whether a programme of innovatory and experimental projects was the most useful contribution that the Government could make to the development of improved facilities for cyclists. A third question was of great significance in the work done to bring the Bill before the House. It asked what improvements in the facilities for cyclists on trunk roads would be most valuable and how safety could be improved.
The debate has gone yet further. We have considered the vital importance of safety. The fact that there are about 4,000 cycling casualties a year must be prominent in our consideration. Such an accident rate is far too high. The House has a duty to all road users to improve safety wherever possible. However, with regard to cyclists, we must consider the danger from motor cars and lorries. At the same time — this is very important — a matching responsibility should rest with the cyclists.
The failure of some cyclists to observe the highway code appears, in my experience, to be growing. Examples are shooting red lights and more important, on both cycle tracks and roads, failing to cycle with forward and rear lights at night. Hon. Members have alluded to that on a number of occasions, and it should be brought to the attention of all the cycling population that it is vital, in the interests of all cyclists, that we do not allow a minority to continue to flout the highway code, which only damages the interests of cycling as a whole.
In this context, I strongly urge all those concerned with road safety to seek to place further emphasis on cycle safety. Not only schools but the local police have a role to play, the latter with their excellent increased communications, which have come about in my constituency over the past few years. By communication with local groups and people in the constituencies, but primarily through school teachers, we could achieve considerable benefits through education. We should encourage more youngsters to take the national cycle proficiency scheme. I understand that about 300,000 youngsters per annum now participate in the scheme. I should like that figure to be 500,000. It is extremely important that, through education, safety is increased on


our roads. That is behind much of the thinking in the Bill, which I hope will be enacted. The consultation document referred to that matter. Referring to the important area of education, publicity and the highway code, it stated that
Publicity and advice about cycling safety should be directed not only to cyclists themselves but also to drivers since their lack of care or consideration causes many cycling accidents".
It was interesting also to reflect on the initiative taken in the first funded publicity campaign specifically designed to improve cycling safety, which was launched in 1980 in East Anglia. The theme was making other road users more aware of cyclists, especially children. Results suggested an 18 per cent. reduction in casualties during the period of that campaign. It is to be welcomed that that initiative has been taken up as it improves safety for cyclists and other road users, but we need more such campaigns throughout the country.
I regret that more has not been done about safety of design and manufacture, which is crucial to the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and supports what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) rightly said on an earlier occasion. Cycles today are often built more for speed than for safety and with increased speed comes a commensurate risk of increased danger. It is therefore vital that manufacturers take on the responsibility of ensuring that standards of manufacture are commensurate with the increased speed and the increased danger. I understand that present legal requirements cover only brakes and lights. The British Standards Institution has sought a more comprehensive standard to strengthen requirements for all basic cycle components, but further developments are needed, as design for even greater speed carries the risk of still more accidents.
These questions are central to the consultation proposals behind the Bill and the importance that it gives to the safety of cyclists. The difficulties involved have in many ways been underestimated in the debate. The Cyclists Touring Club document on the Bill states that in the past cycle tracks have been extremely dangerous as well as unsatisfactory in other ways. It states:
There is neither priority nor protection for the cyclist at junctions from other traffic turning across his path or leaving minor roads, work entrances and private drives across the track. The majority of motorists, even if they notice the existence of the tracks, assume that they have priority over cyclists using them. It is usually difficult for a cyclist approaching a junction to ascertain the intentions of following motorists and inconvenient for a cyclist to stop and give way at every junction, no matter how minor, in order to be assured of no conflict. Queues of vehicles waiting to enter the major road from a minor one also invariably block the cycle track.
I have discovered that from my own experience.
Indeed, it is seldom possible to leave a cycle track sufficienty in advance of a junction in order to safely execute a right turn.
The greatest danger to cyclists certainly occurs at major junctions, especially roundabouts, where it is crucial that the highway code be observed. Other examples are bottlenecks such as bridges. Yet at these points cycle tracks often cease to exist. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) spoke of the difficulty of matching a completed cycle track with a similar stretch on the other side of the road. Cycle tracks may suddenly cease to exist, pitching the cyclist into a maelstrom of traffic at the most dangerous places. The Bill seeks to tackle those problems.
Laybys and service roads often intrude on cycle tracks and there is no clear priority for cyclists at such points. Furthermore, the Cyclists Touring Club states:
Cycle tracks are frequently illegally obstructed and enforcement of parking restrictions has a low priority with the police. Defective vehicles are often moved on to a cycle track in order to clear the main carriageway even by the police themselves.
The maintenance of cycle tracks is given a low priority by local authorities. I hope that the bill will encourage local authorities to become more actively involved in the development of cycle tracks, and that there will be a move to greater local involvement in the development of cycle tracks.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend is a distinguished athlete and clearly knows a great deal about cycling. Does he agree that the planning of cycle tracks is much better dealt with locally than across regional areas?

Mr. Moynihan: It is absolutely necessary for local groups—I am thinking not just of the boroughs but of local groups with a particular interest in road safety or the development of cycle tracks in the area — to have a direct say in the development of cycle tracks. I do not of course wish to imply that the national level is not important as well. There have been some first-class reports, including the report about the conversion of disused railways.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished athlete and a good cyclist. I am waiting to speak on my Private Tenants' Rights Bill but my interest in this Bill is that on the day of action, when there was no transport, I cycled to the House of Commons. The journey was downhill, but it exhaused me. My bicycle is still here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could take it home to Stepney for me. It would take him only a couple of minutes.

Mr. Moynihan: I am delighted to hear that the day of action led to a considerable amount of action on the part of the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will not wait for further industrial disruption before remounting his bicycle and riding it home. I exhort him to do so regularly. I have no doubt that he felt fitter after bicycling here. Despite the slight incline, he will find after riding home that his fitness has increased still further and with it his ability to speak with eloquence. If one is healthy in body, one is healthy in mind.
We should recognise the good work done by the Cyclists Touring Club. The club assists its members and the millions of people in this country who own their own cycles, and it does a considerable amount of other work, for instance, in connection with detailed consideration of the construction of cycle tracks and with safety. We should congratulate the CTC on its work and encourage it to go on from strength to strength. We should thank the CTC for bringing many points to our attention and helping us to give legal implementation to the measures that it has long been campaigning for, to the benefit of cyclists throughout the land.
The Bill will achieve many of the CTC's aims, including the banning of mopeds from cycle tracks and the banning of parking on cycle tracks, which has concerned many people for a long time. It will now be an offence to drive or park partly or wholly on a cycle track. There will be necessary exceptions for the emergency services—


fire, police and ambulances — and for statutory undertakers such as council maintenance vehicles which require access to the track. I hope that that exception will extend to people who need access when there is no reasonable alternative access.
I attach special importance to the easier conversion of footpaths to cycle tracks. A footpath is a pedestrian right of way away from a road and the definition does not include footpaths along the side of roads, as they are legally known as footways. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly drew the House's attention to that point. Footways are covered by separate legislation and there is a comparatively straightforward procedure for converting a footway into a cycle path. The present procedure for converting a footpath into a cycle track, however, is extremely complex. It involves obtaining planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Planning permission is also required to stop up a footpath. The most important part of the process is the construction of the cycle track. There is no point in having cycle tracks that are a mass of potholes and inefficiently built, as they might serve only to add to the risks faced by cyclists.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend will recall that we discussed cycle tracks in rural areas earlier. If such a cycle track is to be constructed, does he agree that it is extremely important that it has the full consent of any landowners involved, to secure the best possible track?

Mr. Moynihan: That is an extremely important point. It is important that all interested parties be consulted and participate fully in such developments. That point was made in the study of disused railway lines in England and Wales, which noted that many proposed cycle tracks in rural areas would cross private land. It is important that landowners be encouraged to participate in the development of cycle tracks. My hon. Friend's point is central to the debate and I am grateful for his intervention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying some way from the subject of the Bill. I hope that he will get back to what is in it.

Mr. Moynihan: Answering my hon. Friend's intervention allows me to return——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not answer any other interventions that are not related to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Moynihan: I shall ensure that that is the case.
The easy conversion of footpaths to cycle tracks is central to the Bill. That procedure might involve a compulsory purchase order to buy the land and a traffic regulation order to ban motor vehicles from the track. Clause 3 amends the Highways Act 1980 and enables local authorities to convert footpaths into cycle tracks in one step, and without the need to apply for planning permission. That elucidation is important. It appears that the intention is to enable local authorities to convert little-used or wide footpaths in urban and suburban areas more easily. I do not believe that anyone expects that there will be great demand for such powers. There is likely to be only a limited number of conversions at carefully selected locations each year but present legislation is a major deterrent to action. If enacted, the Bill will give the Secretary of State for Transport powers to draw up regulations governing conversion procedure. They will

require that conversion orders be advertised and an inquiry held by an independent inspector if any objections are received. There will be the same right of objection under the new procedure, but now objectors will have the opportunity to oppose the conversion as a whole rather than just the intermediate steps.
The Bill gives local authorities the power to convert a cycle track back to a footpath should it be found, following monitoring, that the scheme has not worked well in practice. That central feature of the Bill demands the full support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, and I echo my hope that Virgil was accurate and that my hon. Friend will reflect that
The great cycle of the ages is renewed. Now justice returns, returns the Golden Age; a new generation now descends.

Mr. Neil Thorne: This matter is close to my heart, since I have been a cycle user all my life. I congratulate my hon. Friends on the sensible passage of the Bill so far and I especially congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Mr Franks) and for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) on their valuable contributions throughout our consideration of the Bill.
We must emphasise the fact that cyclists can only expect to obtain the facilities that they adequately and fully use. If they fail to use what Parliament make available, the scheme will fall, for the simple reason that it would be wrong to spend a great deal of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money on the facilities. The maintenance of standards is also expensive, and it would be wrong to spend money on it if the facilities are not used. That applies especially to disused railway lines and other major schemes where no alternative use can be made of the land. Badly maintained cycle tracks can be dangerous. It is the chicken-and-egg story, in that if cycle tracks are not adequately used one cannot expect authorities properly to maintain them. However, if they are not properly maintained, cyclists will avoid using them and will prefer to use more dangerous routes along roads, which they believe to be less immediately hazardous but which could lead to more serious accidents.
We should encourage the use of bicycles because of the points that have already been made about their importance to health, but we must also remember that the weather in Britain is not as suitable for cycling as it is in other countries. Therefore, the use of bicycles here is not as great as it could be. We must be careful when promoting such a Bill to ensure that bicycle users are adequately proficient. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use her best endeavours to promote the bicycle. I know from her support of this cause how keen she is, and I am sure that I can rely upon her valued support.

Mrs. Chalker: I begin what is perhaps the final session on the Bill in the House by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) for all his efforts in bringing it to the House. He will be thanked not only by many obviously cycle-friendly hon. Members but by many groups outside who have given advice and encouragement and constantly kept us both up — the Friends of the Earth, the Cyclists Touring Club and all the other groups which want to see safer cycling, which is what the Bill is all about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said that he hoped the Bill would receive its Third Reading this afternoon because it would make a welcome gift for me on my birthday this weekend. I accept that gratefully. If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) were in his place, I would say to him that I am always happy to accept even his kind remarks, particularly as there are only two and a half months between us. I think that he has forgotten that.
The Bill has received much encouragement and support from two hon. Members who are unable to be with us today—the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), the chairman and secretary of the all-party group, Friends of Cycling. I know that they and the whole group wish it well on its way, as does the Department of Transport. I am grateful to hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, for their thanks to the officials in my Department who have been concerned with the Bill over a long period and want to see it, as I do, on the statute book so that it is practical in operation for the benefit of safe cycling.
Some measures in the Bill are to be welcomed even more than others, although every part of it is welcome. First, there is the banning of mopeds and of parking and driving of motor vehicles on cycle tracks. That measure will yield benefits in terms of increased safety and convenience not only to cyclists but to pedestrians, but particularly to cyclists because it removes the need for highway authorities to make individual traffic regulation orders. The safety of cyclists using cycle tracks and the users of footpaths or footways adjacent to cycle tracks will also be enhanced by the powers given to highway authorities to erect barriers on any publicly maintainable cycle track and to undertake whatever work they consider necessary, in the interests of safety, to separate cycle tracks from adjacent publicly maintainable footpaths or footways. That is a beneficial measure. I take careful note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has just said about the maintenance of such cycle tracks and their use, the one being involved thoroughly with the other. If we are to have safer cycling, cyclists must use what is provided safely and regularly.
The Bill simplifies the complex procedures that have existed up till now to convert all or part of a footpath to a cycle track, and that is long overdue. Such conversions play a significant role in carefully selected locations by helping cyclists without endangering or inconveniencing pedestrians.
In simplifying the procedures, the Bill, with the amendments that have been made this morning, strengthens the rights of objectors. I have made it clear at each stage of the Bill that I consider it essential that any contested footpath conversion should be given careful consideration. With the amendments that have been passed by the House this morning, the Bill provides that safeguard, and an additional safeguard where footpaths cross agricultural land, even if some of us consider that that might be improved further in another place.
The compensation provisions in the Bill seek to ensure that those who suffer loss as a consequence of the powers contained in the Bill can claim redress. That is an essential part of any measure such as this. I think that I can fairly say overall that I consider that the Bill as it now stands,

following its consideration by the House, strikes the right balance between seeking to improve conditions for cyclists and the need to ensure that the legitimate interests of others are not overlooked.
I wish to say a few words in relation to the Bill about the need for cycle tracks to provide more and safer cycling. Our policies to achieve this end are contained in the cycling policy statement which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) issued in January 1982. That statement presaged the measures that the Bill seeks to implement.
In January 1982, also, a most valuable study of disused railways in England and Wales and the potential for cycle routes was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, following the study carried out for my Department by John Grimshaw and Associates. Hon. Members who are concerned to see greater cycling track possibilities would do well to read this excellent document because, even if the illustrations contained in it are not for their towns, the ideas that can be applied to other areas are formidable. It is interesting to note, since the publication of the document, how well things have gone in speeding up schemes which may have been in somebody's eye, but never got very far until the pressure came after these documents were published and people got on with the provision of cycle routes.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) mentioned cycling round Washington DC. A measure of the fact that we have woken up to the need for cycle routes in this country is that, as a Government, we have spent £125,000 on cycle tracks in the last few years. Work has been done in London at Albert gate and Albion gate; in Nottingham, there is the Clifton town centre cycle route; in Hersham, Surrey, there is the improvement at the Barley Mow roundabout; and in Preston, in Hull and in many other cities there have been improvements as a result of the efforts to improve the provision of safe cycling facilities for the cyclist of today. A number of other schemes are agreed for implementation in Chelmsford, Canterbury, London and Liverpool, which will shortly be put into effect. Therefore, I think that we are well and truly on our way, although these are but the tip of the iceberg of safe cycling provision that we would hope to make to reduce the alarming number of cycle accidents that show up regularly in the statistics.
I have to tell the House that, unfortunately, the rate of increase in the number of cycling accidents has kept pace with the rate of increase in the number of cyclists in terms of notified accidents. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) mentioned this, as did many other hon. Members. In 1982, the last year for which full figures are available, 300 cyclists were killed and 5,700 were seriously injured. Of those, 30 per cent. were children under the age of 15. Those figures are totally unacceptable.
The Cycle Tracks Bill is one way of helping local highway authorities to make provision for cycle tracks which can be used by young people and, indeed, by adults, for safer cycling in urban areas as well as in more rural communities. I hope also that, through our publicity for safer cycling, we will be able to make use of the innovations that are coming forward from local highway authorities as a result of the measures in my hon. Friend's Bill. It would be good in the years ahead to be able directly


to relate improvements in accident statistics to the amount of provision. We have been able to observe that improvement in some towns.
Cycle safety is the subject of one of my major publicity campaigns this year, as it has been in some previous years. Although we have not yet finalised the campaign, it will include three elements, all of which hon. Members have mentioned. First, publicity will be aimed at increasing the motorist's awareness of the cyclist as a fellow road user when he must be on the same road.
Secondly, publicity will be aimed at improving the cyclist's behaviour on the road. Hon. Members who were present on Second Reading will recall my remarks about the minority of cyclists who weave in and out of traffic, making life perilous in that motorists are sometimes unable to avoid accidents.
The third aspect of our cycle publicity, and one of the most important, is that aimed at reducing the number of cycle accidents involving children. I hope that we shall run some regional television campaigns, which have proved extremely successful in the past. While we are concerned, because the reductions in the number of accidents after those campaigns have not persisted, such campaigns have been part of the reminder mechanism for far greater care, particularly where cycle tracks have not yet been constructed but which will come about as a result of this legislation.
I have referred briefly to cyclists' behaviour, particularly where cycle tracks do not at present exist. Three aspects appear to need highlighting in that respect. One is the failure by some cyclists to observe the rules of the road and the traffic regulations. They imperil not only themselves but pedestrians, and cause accidents which waste not just lives and limbs but a great deal of money.
Secondly, there is the problem of those who ride with inadequate lights, or none at all, at night. That has been a grave worry. Incidentally, the only reason why the front light of my bicycle was not showing in the photograph of 28 March was that I had removed it. Having had several front lights stolen, I take the precaution of taking mine with me rather than leaving it on the bike when it is parked around town.
The third aspect of cyclists' behaviour of which we must take careful note is that of riding illegally on pavements. I referred to this when we debated an amendment concerning the segregation of shared facilities. I re-emphasise that cycling on pavements is illegal. Cycling on cycle tracks, where designated, is what the Bill is about. That is to be encouraged. But cycling on pavements is dangerous, for obvious reasons.
We have received many complaints—some in areas where there are no cycle tracks, but also in areas where there are cycling facilities—of the misuse of other, non-cycle track areas, particularly by young riders of BMX bikes. I appeal to parents to instil in their youngsters the dangers that they can cause to pedestrians and other cyclists by some of the stunts that they perform on these bikes not on cycle tracks but in totally inappropriate areas.
As for improving cyclists' roadcraft, I commend to hon. Members the new booklet produced by ROSPA on bicycle ownership. I shall not go into the whole question of bicycle maintenance and roadcraft in the way in which some hon. Members have tempted me to do, except to refer to the adoption of the new British standard 6102 for the cycle itself and the British standard for cycle lights, so we are moving in the right direction. We must persuade

people to do as the booklet suggests—carry out daily, weekly and monthly, the checks illustrated on its centre pages. The booklet describes what they should lubricate and clean weekly and monthly so that bikes are safe on tracks and roads. My Department will be supporting the ROSPA bicycle owner's handbook in the form of a pamphlet or poster. It will support also efforts to stop illegal riding on pavements. In the coming months my Department will encourage riding on cycle tracks and other safe places.
I reassure those who are naturally and rightly worried about the blind and partially sighted that my Department will shortly be issuing revised advice on shared use. We shall stress that shared use is a safety measure of last resort, when there is no other way to overcome problems that cyclists can face on roads. We have said that all along, because segregation of cyclists and pedestrians is the ideal way to go. It may not be feasible in every case. It may be necessary, in the interests of safe cycling, to get cyclists off the road.
The advice will underline the need to give careful consideration to the problems of the blind and partially sighted. I hope that local highways authorities will consult those groups about shared use. As some hon. Members know, the Transport and Road Research Laboratory is undertaking research to examine the use of tactile warnings to aid the blind and partially sighted using shared facilities. The Department's advice will stress that white line segregation and unsegregated sharing should be used only in a limited range of circumstances. I emphasise that shared use, wherever it occurs, must be monitored in practice. If it is found to be unacceptable as some hon. Members have presaged, it must be removed.
There is increased awareness among local authorities of the need to provide cycle tracks and to improve facilities for cyclists. I am aware that the study commissioned by the Friends of the Earth paints a pessimistic picture of local authority effort to date. I do not share that pessimism, although I would always accept that more can be done to ensure safe cycling. My Department will do all it can in that regard.
It is my policy, clearly understood by my officials, that cyclists' needs must be considered during the preparation of all my Department's trunk road proposals. When a specific provision for cyclists is justified, it can be provided. We shall, however, do nothing to encourage increased use by cyclists of certain heavily trafficked trunk roads in urban areas, because that is asking for trouble for cyclists and other traffic. My officials will always be happy to discuss with local highway authorities alternative parallel cycle routes using low flow roads.
It is not my policy to ban cyclists from trunk roads. We must show a measure of sense about the way in which we use the law, but there may be circumstances in which, for safety reasons, cyclists must be banned from particular locations, and alternative routes should be available.
My Department welcomes the proposals from local authorities for their innovatory schemes to be included in our special research. We are especially interested in solutions to the problems cyclists face at major road junctions, including roundabouts, which hon. Members mentioned many times. We are carrying on with cycle route research in five towns. In conjunction with the cycle tracks, we are backing up cycle training, for which many hon. Members asked, especially for children. About 300,000 children around 10 years of age are already


involved annually in ROSPA's national cycle proficiency scheme. I shall ascertain how far we can increase that number towards the 500,000 target, which one of my hon. Friends wished me to set. The lesson for safe cycling is good and early cycling education in the schools through parent-teacher associations, including encouragement to use cycle tracks, which the Bill will encourage in no small measure.
I commend acceptance of the Bill to the House. I wish it well in another place and hope that we shall see more and safer cycling by the greater use of cycle tracks in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Private Tenants' Rights Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2 pm

Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is designed to give the tenants of private landlords the right to buy their dwellings, the right to repair and maintenance and the right to be provided with full information about the identity of their landlord and to deal with other related purposes. It is an important Bill which deals with a large sector of the population. It is estimated that 12 per cent. of the population live in private rented accommodation.
In the short time that has been left to me to move the Bill's Second Reading I shall deal with the need for the Bill and what it includes. I shall then try to deal with the objections that might be advanced. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will not be among the objectors because I believe that most of the objections to private tenants' right to buy and their right to repair and maintenance and adequate information are spurious.
The Bill has been supported by a wide range of organisations including the National Union of Students, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Labour housing group—a prominent and powerful campaigning group for housing and improved housing — that non-political body that is known as the Greater London council and many other local authorities. Various tenants' groups have supported it, especially the Organisation of Private Tenants, which I thank at this early stage for the background work that it has done in helping and supporting me in assembling the Bill.
I move the Second Reading of the Bill in the light of my experience on Merseyside, especially in my Bootle constituency. In the old town of Bootle and Litherland, which covers about half of my constituency, and in the new part of the constituency that came into being with the boundary changes—Waterloo and Seaforth—there are many who suffer from living in private rented accommodation. About 48 per cent. of the population in that part of my constituency continues to rent from private landlords. That is a phenomenally high percentage when set against the national average of 12 per cent. I experience daily at my advice surgeries and in telephone calls the hardship that is suffered by many in the private rented sector.
The background to the Bill and the need for it is a growing housing crisis. Under this Government, housebuilding has hit its lowest level for 60 years. Older housing is decaying faster than it is being improved. Between 1976 and 1981 the number of homes in serious disrepair needing over £17,000 worth of work at 1981 prices increased by 20 per cent. to over 1 million. I understand that 4 million homes need £2,500 or more spent on them on repairs at 1981 prices. Disrepair is not confined to the old Victorian housing stock; it is to be found in much newer property. As the supply of decent homes contracts, the housing waiting list queues for council accommodation are lengthening, homelessness is increasing and people are being made more and more dependent on the private landlord. They are being forced to be dependent upon him as they cannot gain access to other tenures as owner-occupiers, council tenants or tenants of very good housing associations. It is well known that the tenants of private


landlords are, in housing terms, among the most deprived members of society. Every national survey shows that private tenants live in the worst housing conditions. The 1981 house condition survey showed that 42 per cent. of private rented dwellings were in substantial disrepair compared with only 18 per cent. in the other main tenures.
Who is housed in the private rented sector? There is a wide range of household types to be found within it. It is important not to generalise, but some generalities and statistics are available. The groups most likely to be private tenants consist of those who are over 60 years of age, and often poor, in unfurnished accommodation, single people, childless couples and groups of young sharers, who are not necessarily poor, who live in furnished flats. The sector also houses significant numbers of families with children, often poor, and living in bad conditions.
Who are the landlords? That is another question which needs to be asked, because when one suggests a right-to-buy provision for the tenants of private landlords or taking away landlord's rights and giving them to private tenants we hear the myth that many private landlords are benevolent widows who rent one or two houses. The typical landlord is not a widow with a few houses but the Freshwaters and Burgers of this world—the property speculators who are in the market to make a quick killing. To do so, because of the way that the housing market operates, they need to exploit the tenants and not to fulfil their statutory repair and maintenance obligations.
Since the passing of the Housing Act 1980 we have had shorthold and assured tenancies and the continuing use of the loopholds in the existing Rent Acts. There has been the use of bogus licences instead of tenancies, which destroys security of tenure in the private rented sector, and the use of bogus holiday lets. Bootle is not famous as a holiday resort, but one would be surprised at how many holiday lets there are in Bootle. That is true in London and many other parts of the country where there are housing shortages and stress. They are used by the private landlord to get round legislation. My proposals would do something about that.
The harassment and illegal eviction of private tenants has become increasingly widespread as property speculators buy tenanted properties and then use any method to get the tenant out so as to reap the benefit of improvement grants and sell the converted properties for owner-occupation.
One of the arguments that might be used against the Bill is that we are forcing private landlords, the owners of a private asset, to sell against their will. Most private landlords want to sell on the basis of vacant possession so that they can make a large profit and a quick killing. They refuse to sell to the sitting tenant. They use harassment to winkle out the sitting tenant and obtain vacant possession.
The suggestion that Rent Act controls, which give security of tenure to private tenants and fix rents, dry up the supply of private rented accommodation is a myth. Experience shows the opposite. When the Rent Act 1957 was passed, which destroyed security of tenure, the supply of private rented accommodation declined. Private landlords managed to get tenants out because they did not have the same security, and the properties were sold for owner-occupation. In 1974 when the Labour Government gave security of tenure to private tenants in the furnished, rented sector, there was not the corresponding decline in that sector that everyone predicted.
The private rented sector has declined and continues to decline because of the financial position and the subsidies in the housing market. The Government subsidise owner-occupation to the tune of £7 billion a year. They do that through mortgage tax relief, which amounted to £2·75 billion in 1983–84; capital gains tax and stamp duty exemption, which amounted to more than £2·5 billion in 1983–84; and through the discounts of £1·45 billion given to public sector tenants to buy their homes in 1982.
The Labour party does not say that people should not be helped to buy their homes or that the subsidies should not be given. On the contrary, the Bill proposes to extend the frontiers of owner-occupation, something in which the Labour party believes. I challenge Conservative Members to oppose a Bill that will do that.
In the period during which £7 billion of subsidies were given to owner-occupiers, private tenants received nothing by way of general subsidies. That is iniquitous and the Bill tries to give some public support to the private tenant in the way that a great deal of public support is given to the owner-occupier.
Not only do private tenants not receive any general subsidies; the subsidies that are going to owner-occupiers increase the pressures on private tenants as landlords try to get vacant possession in order to take advantage of the subsidised prices that owner-occupiers can afford to pay. Therefore, it is in the name of equity that I introduce the measure. How disgraceful it is that public sector tenants have a right to buy while private tenants, who, on the whole, pay higher rents for inferior accommodation, are denied at least an equal right.
Part I, chapter II gives private tenants the right to buy the home they are living in, and that surely can only be right. Day after day we hear about the Government's commitment to home ownership. Indeed, according to the Secretary of State for the Environment, it is well known that the Prime Minister strongly supports the home ownership drive. So do the Opposition. We have a philosophy that people should be able to own their own homes, either as owner-occupiers or as socially owned dwellings, where they own them collectively through a socially accountable housing association or local authority. I am against the idea of people owning other people's homes and making a profit out of the basic human need of everyone to have a home and a roof above his head.
Part II deals with some of the issues that have been exercising the mind of the Minister for Housing and Construction, such as the rights of long leasehold tenants, some of whom would have become long leasehold tenants by exercising the rights to buy and some of whom became long leasehold tenants by other means.
Chapter II gives some tenants the means of maintaining a proper degree of control over the amount of service charge that they pay. It also gives long leasehold private tenants in a majority the right to collective purchase of the freehold of a block of flats. That is a measure on which the Law Commission has commented in its report. "The Laws of Positive and Restrictive Covenants". It is a measure which should receive support from all parts of the House.
Private landlords are notoriously reluctant to fulfil their repairing obligations. As I have said, the 1981 "English House Condition Survey" found that 42 per cent. of private rented dwellings were in substantial disrepair. Part II lays a clear duty upon landlords to maintain an adequate


standard of repair, and a duty upon local authorities to ensure that the minimum repair standards are met—another measure that is necessary in present circumstances.
Part II also gives real meaning to tenants' house renovation grants to make provision for 100 per cent. repair grants for private tenants.
Part III is very important in that it turns into duties many of the permissive powers that local authorities have to try to protect private tenants, and by part III we want to enable local authorities to fulfil the intention of existing legislation. It makes provision for inspections of their areas, the provision of adequate housing aid, tenancy regulations and legal services, and the publication of such information as will assist tenants and landlords to become aware of their rights and duties. That is very important, because there are rights and duties in existing legislation which tenants know nothing about, and the Bill would put that right.
I have tenants in my constituency who have lived in properties for 40 years and do not even know who is their landlord and cannot find out. That is a scandal. The Bill would require in any kind of private rented accommodation, no matter under what legislation it fell, that the rent book would have to be provided and the real name and address of the landlord would be on the rent book. Even if it happened to be the Church of England or the National Union of Mineworkers, it would make no difference. The real name of the landlord should be on the rent book.
The Government might want to oppose the legislation because they think it is unfair to force a person with a private asset to sell at a discount. Their argument in favour of discounts in the public rented sector for council housing was based in first instance on the idea that a tenant in the private rented sector received a discount because the value of the property that he was purchasing was lower than the value of the property at vacant possession. If landlords sell property with sitting tenants, they probably receive more than the price that they paid for it. No landlord with a sitting tenant gets the market value for the property.
It can be argued that one should not give the same rights to the private tenant because it is not fair on the private landlord. If that is so, let the Government amend the Bill in Committee so that they do for tenants of private landlords what they have done for tenants of charitable housing associations. They should make public money available to provide discounts in the same way as money is handed out to tenants of charitable housing associations who wish to become owner-occupiers. If the Government believe in the principle of the right to buy and extending the frontiers of owner-occupation to all, let them do that.
The Bill meets the needs of the present housing crisis. It is an attempt to help those in the housing market who are often the worst housed and pay the highest rents. It extends the frontiers of owner-occupation. I do not believe that anyone who really wants to fight for better housing conditions for the British people would oppose it. The only people who would are those who are interested in property as a means of speculation and making a profit, who do not see housing as a social service meeting a basic human need.
It is impossible to have a free market for housing. The Government agree with that. They are not in favour of a free market because they defend subsidies and income tax

relief to owner-occupiers, as I do, although I should like the system to be reformed. To get a competitive rate of return, the private landlord would have to charge about £80 a week on a property worth £30,000, yet the same property would cost £60 a week if it was bought under a mortgage, after deducting interest relief. That shows the unfairness and disparity of treatment between the tenant in private rented accommodation and an owner-occupier.
The Bill seeks to put right those inequities and to help those in housing need. In many areas Rachmanism is beginning to appear again, as the housing crisis is worsening, waiting lists are becoming longer, people are being forced back into dependence on the private landlord, and fewer houses in the public rented sector are available to those in need.

Mr. John Fraser: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), not just on his good fortune but on his ingenuity in getting the Bill before the House. I hope that it will be unanimously and quickly passed, so that it can go into Committee.
Part I gives the right to buy to those in the privately rented sector. Three things have a particular influence over a person's life—his job, if he is lucky enough to have one, his family and his home. The idea that someone in the private sector can own and control something that has such great influence is good and to be welcomed. All the evidence from the "English House Condition Survey" about changes in tenure and the amount of money spent on maintaining one's own property provides a good reason for giving the right to buy to those in privately rented accommodation. This alternative for dealing with the privately rented sector has appeared in many Labour party policy documents. Although I do not endorse every detail put forward by my hon. Friend, the principle is right, not only for reasons of principle but for practical reasons, because it would bring about an improvement in the poor conditions of privately rented accommodation.
My hon. Friend has made proposals for long leaseholds of flats. There is an increasingly grave problem for those who took leases on flats and maisonettes beginning in the 1930s, who now find, after about 50 years, that they have unsaleable properties on their hands. There is no reason why my hon. Friend's proposals for the collective purchase of the freehold, the collective management of a block of flats or the individual extension of long leases on flats and maisonettes should not be implemented.
The Government said that they were awaiting the Royal Commission report. Unfortunately, that does not solve the problem now, although it may do so in future. The matter is now extremely urgent, and in common justice the Government must move to allow leaseholders to extend their leases and collectively to purchase. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the committee set up by the Department to look into the management of tenement blocks will be able to make recommendations on which the Department will introduce legislation on the lines of my hon. Friend's Bill to allow the collective enfranchisement of leaseholders in tenement blocks, the acquisition of management, and the extension of individual leases.
The present situation has led to the growth of a polite, legal method of extortion by landlords of tenement blocks who can extract premiums and other unfair advantages from tenants who, because of the gap in the law, cannot properly defend their interests. I hope that the Minister


will respond briefly to that part of the Bill which would give some liberation and enfranchisement to people who are often distressed and agonised about their position with shortening leases on flats and maisonettes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): Listening to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) one might have imagined that the intention of the Bill was to strengthen the rights of tenants in the private rented sector. When he first introduced the Bill, however, he made it clear that its purpose was to
facilitate the decline of the private rented sector
to the point of
near oblivion" — [Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 154.]
I fail to see how private tenants can benefit if the sector to which they look for accommodation is allowed to decline to that extent.
I fear, therefore, that this is just another example of sheer Labour party dogma. It opposes the independent sectors in education and medicine and now wishes to bring about the decline of the private rented sector in housing. That is wholly consistent with the rather narrow minded Socialist outlook that favours public sector monopolies. The private rented sector has made a valuable contribution to tackling some of our housing problems. Far from trying to reduce its resources, we should do all that we can to encourage that investment.
It is certainly ironic to hear the hon. Member for Bootle of all people arguing for a proposal to extend the right to buy. I have fresh in my memory the passage of the Housing and Building Control Bill through its various stages in this House — not once, but twice. Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Bootle, opposed just about every measure that we proposed to extend the existing statutory right-to-buy scheme. They opposed our proposals to reduce the qualifying period from three years to two years, to extend the right to buy if the council does not own the freehold, to increase the maximum discount to 60 per cent., and many other provisions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of his colleagues in local government have also done all that they can to frustrate the effective operation of the existing scheme. It therefore seems odd, to say the least, for the hon. Gentleman to seek to promote a scheme to extend to private sector tenants a right-to-buy scheme modelled closely in many respects on legislation that he and his colleagues have consistently and vociferously criticised.
There is a real case for the Government to answer, however, although Labour Members are scarcely in a position to make it. If public sector tenants have the right to buy, why should not private sector tenants be treated similarly? The answer is that local authorities, housing associations and new towns provide housing on a statutory basis from public funds whereas private landlords do not. The Government do not believe that we have the right to require the disposal of houses purchased by private owners with their own assets. We certainly do not oppose sales to sitting private tenants, but we believe that they must be achieved through voluntary negotiation. Between 150,000 and 200,000 private tenants have indeed bought their homes in this way over the past decade—many at less than full market price.
We have welcomed the British Property Federation's recommendation, made in 1982, that its members should notify tenants of their intention to sell a block of flats. This gives tenants the opportunity to bid collectively for the block if they wish to do so, and has already enabled blocks to be bought by tenants.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked me about the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry which has just been set up. He asked whether the matter that he raised would be covered. The terms of reference are:
To collect and examine evidence of the nature, scale and incidence of problems for landlords and tenants arising from the management of privately owned blocks of flats; to assess the difficulties caused by these management problems and to make recommendations on how they might be resolved.
It will be for the members of the committee to interpret those terms of reference as broadly or as narrowly as they wish. If they make a recommendation on the subject to which the hon. Member referred, the Government will give it serious consideration.
The Bill perpetuates the Labour party's total failure to recognise the important role that the private sector has to play in meeting housing need. The private sector provides a great range of accommodation, far wider than local authorities can provide, and therefore increases choice and flexibility. It is increasingly important for the young, single and mobile. Young people often cannot afford a house, even under the generous terms in the Bill, and they are not generally provided for by local authorities. By providing accommodation especially suited to the mobile—which local authorities are simply unable to provide—the private sector makes an important contribution to economic and housing flexibility.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir George Young: Out of generosity, I will.

Mr. Heffer: It is true that local authorities are not providing homes for people to rent, but the responsibility for that is on the shoulders of the Government.

Sir George Young: I wish that I had not given way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the major cuts in public housing investment were made by the Labour Government after the IMF intervened in 1976. The reduction in housing investment in the public sector began in 1976 and continued until 1981–82 when it was arrested by the present Administration.
Whether under a Conservative or a Labour regime, it is in no one's interest that the supply of privately rented accommodation should continue to decline at the rate at which it has done in recent years. For this reason, we believe that private tenants' rights are best served through the creation of a healthy and responsible private rented sector, with a good supply of decent accommodation to let. To do this we must achieve a fair balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. Landlords must be given sufficient encouragement to continue letting, to let vacant property, and to bring more accommodation on to the market, while tenants must be given adequate safeguards and rights, as well as the benefit of a wider choice of accommodation to rent.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose——

Sir George Young: In the last Parliament, therefore, we introduced an important package of measures in the 1980 Housing Act. I will today concentrate on the measures of principal benefit to tenants.
Shorthold tenancies have been mentioned. They enable landlords to let for between one and five years with the certainty of regaining possession. Shorthold has already been effective in bringing back into the private rented sector accommodation which would otherwise have been left empty unnecessarily — because of the security of tenure for three generations conferred by Labour's Rent Acts — or let under loophole agreements outside any form of statutory control. Many more landlords would let under the statutory provisions of shorthold rather than through loopholes had it not been for the Labour party's irresponsible threat to repeal the measure.
We also introduced assured tenancies under which bodies approved by the Secretary of State can build for rent at freely negotiated rents outside the restrictions of the Rent Acts. The success of this scheme has grown steadily and for the first time in many years new property is being built specifically for rent in the private sector. The number of landlords approved to let on an assured tenancy basis has now risen to 150, and further applications are still in the pipeline. The scheme has been successful in attracting new areas of investment into private renting. Approved bodies include the major housebuilders, property developers, financial institutions and housing associations at one end of the scale, and, at the other, local building firms, small property and investment companies and partnerships. Neither of these measures affected the security of tenure or rights of existing tenants, and, indeed, the 1980 Act improved the rights of existing as well as new tenants.
In order to maintain incentives for landlords to offer accommodation, we reduced the period before which a registered rent can be reviewed from three years to two, so that rents more fairly reflect increases in the costs of maintenance and improvements to rented property. At the same time, however, we retained the phasing provisions so that tenants do not have to pay the full amount of any increase in their rent for one full year from the date of registration. The actual criteria which rent officers use for the assessment of rents were left completely unchanged.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir George Young: We also amended the effective date——

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday 4 May.

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Not moved.

TRADE UNION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

STRAW AND STUBBLE BURNING (CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 November].

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 May.

Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you prior notice. I submit that it is out of order for an objection to be made if it kills off the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill — or any other worthy or unworthy Bill — on the grounds that it is clearly the rule of the House that speeches cannot be made and no effective interventions can properly be effective other than from a standing position. "Erskine May" is absolutely clear on the point. On page 418 it says:
Members must speak standing and uncovered. In cases of sickness or infirmity, however, the indulgence of a seat may be allowed, at the suggestion of a Member and with the general acquiescence of the House.
I did not hear any request for indulgence from the Government Whip, who made his intervention from a sedentary position. If he is sick or infirm, it is not a matter that he has placed before the House, other than indirectly, through his assumption of the office which he holds. "Erskine May" continues:
Only when a question of order arises during a division may a Member speak seated and covered.
There was no Division, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, declined to allow one, and if the hon. Gentleman's head is covered, all appearances are to the contrary.
It has been suggested that when an hon. Member objects he is not speaking and that therefore the rule does not apply. That cannot be right, assuming that it is an articulate utterance which the Government Whip is making—I accept that that is open to some doubt. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "speak" as follows:
To utter or pronounce words or articulate sounds".
I do not know whether the word "Object" is articulate or inarticulate, but it is certainly intended to influence the House. The dictionary continues:
to exercise the faculty of speech".
No doubt the Government Whip intends to do that. It then says:
to express one's thoughts in words.
If that is not overstating what the hon. Gentleman did, that was no doubt his intention. The man certainly spoke, but


when he speaks seated he cannot effectively affect the business of the House, let alone kill off the Bill. Nor are those quotations selective. I have others all of which say much the same.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. I am grateful to him for mentioning to me in advance that he intended to raise this matter. What has happened in the House this afternoon is perfectly consistent with the practice that has been followed for a considerable time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that the matter should be clarified beyond all doubt, remedy is open to him—he can draw it to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure or table a motion.
It would help the Chair and, I am sure, the House if an hon. Member who wished to express objection to a Bill would do so loudly and clearly, so that there is no doubt that an objection has been taken.

Mr. Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure, of which I am a member. It is a matter for the Chair, which you, Sir, occupy. Where a person utters words or articulates sounds with ordinary modulation of the voice rather than gasping, groaning, moaning, sighing, belching or other things which the Government Chief Whip and other Whips normally do in the course of their duties, it is speaking. Therefore, it is for the Chair to rule and the matter should not be sent to a Committee from which it may or may not emerge before the next general election.
I ask for a ruling from you, Sir, as to whether it is proper for a Government Whip or anyone else to raise an objection from a seated position. It is contrary to the public interest, and, despite tradition, I suggest that it is contrary to the traditions of Parliament that a person can take part in a debate and make an articulate sound which kills off a Bill, and is therefore an important step, without at least standing so that he can be recognised—unless of course he is ashamed to do so, in which case he should hold his peace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that a ruling was implicit in my earlier remarks, when I suggested that, until the matter is pursued further and clarified, we should continue in accordance with the practice that we have used certainly since I have occupied the Chair during the past 12 months. I repeat that it would help if hon. Members objecting would do so loudly and clearly——

Mr. Janner: And standing, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Are you appealing to hon. Members to stand when they make their objection?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It did not seem to me that the large volume which the hon. and learned Gentleman held in his hand was the Standing Orders of the House, the rules of procedure or even "Erskine May".

Mr. Janner: It is "Erskine May".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The interpretation of an expression may be in a book that the hon. and learned Gentleman has borrowed from the Library, but it is for the House to decide upon such matters. Until the House has decided otherwise, I so rule.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you accept

that there is a wider responsibility involved in this procedure, in that the British public in other places find it strange that important and relevant Bills can be killed off without the person who killed them off being identified in the Official Report? I put it to you that the Official Report is lacking if an hon. Member who objects to the passage of legislation is not named. Would you consider this matter and tell the House whether you believe that there is a broader principle involved that should he taken into consideration, and perhaps consider amending your ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My task is to interpret the Standing Orders and rules which the House has decided and to have regard to the practices that we have adopted in such matters. It has never been the practice of the House to identify by name in the Official Report those who have taken objection to a Bill. I repeat that it is open to the House, if it decides that matters should be otherwise, to take steps to change the rules.

Mr. Clement Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What happened would appear in Hansard the day after the event as, "Hon. Members: Object." By using the words, "Hon. Members", it tends to taint all hon. Members with what might well be an invidious decision taken by one person. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider carefully, after the proper explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), whether it might be right to identify the person who objects rather than to leave the objection as though it were the decision of the entire House or of a multitudinous number of hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If sufficient hon. Members share the view that has been expressed that the practice should be changed, they will take action through the appropriate procedures, which is the Select Committee on Procedure or by way of a motion. However, until the House has decided otherwise, I must act in accordance with the practices that we have followed for some time.

Mr. Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your courtesy, Sir. I am not asking you to do other than to interpret the rules of the House as set out in "Erskine May". In view of what you said, Sir, I wish to make that plain. The rule in question is that hon. Members must speak standing. The only footnote is that lady Members are permitted to wear hats when speaking. Where a person is speaking—that is,
producing sounds other than in a single voice"——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member is merely repeating the point he made earlier. I accept that the hon. and learned Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, but I hope that I have given him sufficient guidance. It is for the House to decide whether a monosyllabic utterance constitutes speaking to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman may clutch to his bosom a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary or whatever, but it is for the House, not for some lexicographer, to make a decision. I hope that we can proceed.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your problem, because I also chair some difficult meetings from time to time and I recognise that problems can arise. As you have said that the House should decide, which I accept, would


it not be wise for the matter to be left in abeyance and for no decision to be taken or ruling to be given until the House has decided? Could we not leave the matter in abeyance until the House decides exactly what ought to happen in future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. If by leaving the matter in abeyance until the House has had a chance to reflect and come to a decision he means that we should continue to pursue the practice that we have adopted over a considerable period——

Mr. Heffer: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —that would be a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Janner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be good enough to refer the matter to Mr. Speaker for his considered response to the points that I have made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker is an eager reader of our proceedings and I have not the slightest doubt that by the time the Official Report is on his desk on Monday he will quickly have taken the point.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to a matter that came before the House previously. There was some protest and consideration by Mr. Speaker about whether it was proper for the Government to intervene when the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), came before the House. That matter is subject to your consideration or to that of Mr. Speaker in the context of the deliberations that have already been brought to your attention by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). The objection would appear from the Standing Orders to be defective, because it was made from a sedentary position. I do not have the Standing Orders in front of me. It may also be defective because it appears to have been made by a Minister or Government Whip—although one cannot be clear—instead of by a private Member acting in his or her own capacity in the context of private Members' business.
I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether that is appropriate in this context, as it was ruled to be unfortunate and inappropriate for a Government Whip to intervene and influence the way in which hon. Members voted on private Members' Bills when the matter was before the House before the recess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing in our Standing Orders or procedures precludes any hon. Member, whether he sits on the Government Front Bench or anywhere else in the Chamber, from taking or making objection to a Bill before the House on a Friday.

Mr. Janner: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not fully dealt with the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. and learned Gentleman should not rise to his feet while I am on mine.
Again, it is open to the House, if it so wishes, to make changes in procedure and to do so through the appropriate steps, which I suggested earlier. Mr. Janner, a further point of order?

Mr. Janner: I respectfully suggest, Sir, that it is in the power of the Chair to say now that the rules should be applied. I am not taking the point of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I simply take the point that a person cannot effectively intervene from a sedentary position and I shall ask the House in due course to consider whether the intervention made in that way has in fact blocked that Bill or whether that Bill will now proceed because the objection was out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that the objection is out of order. In so far as there is any substantial point of order in what he has said, I think that it is that on which I have already ruled and given guidance to the House. I think that we ought to get on. Doubtless, before we do, all hon. Members wherever they sit, will have taken note of the comments made and, I hope, will respond to them if they find it necessary to take any further objection.

TOUR OPERATORS (ADVERTISING OF FOREIGN HOLIDAYS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbemauld and Kilsyth): With the permission of the Bill's sponsors, Friday 11 May.

IMMIGRATION OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [6 April].

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Standing in my place, and wishing to be as articulate as possible—object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

MARKING OF GRAVITY (BEER AND LAGER) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CONCESSIONARY TELEVISION LICENCES FOR STATE RETIREMENT PENSIONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Alec Woodall: With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, I move.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman moving that the Bill be read a Second time?

Mr. Woodall: Yes, Sir.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Woodall: Get up and say that.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 May.

RIGHTS OF LONDONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Tony Banks: Who said that?

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

CRIMINAL TRESPASS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.

BANK NOTES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is that not in direct defiance of your instruction that the word "object" comes from a sedentary position from the same evil place that has defied so many other rules?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given no such instruction. I have merely offered advice to the House. In so far as I have ruled, it is that, for today, we should continue, until the House decides otherwise, in accordance with the practice that has been followed in recent times.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 4 May.

DISCHARGE OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Orders of the Day — Air Misses

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Even since I applied for this debate, a series of serious near misses between civilian helicopters and military aircraft have been reported. One occurred on 17 April when an S61 leaving the Beatrice platform in the Moray Firth was overtaken by two military Jaguars that came within 60 yards of the southbound helicopter.
The Minister's Department has already confirmed that there were five other misses reported in the first quarter of this year over north-east Scotland. I wish to draw out one of these which is a particularly graphic example that happened on 14 March. A Bristow Tiger helicopter was flying out from Aberdeen and cruising over the coast with a full load of passengers bound for a North sea platform when suddenly, and without any warning, a military jet swooped in from over the North sea and passed directly under the helicopter at only 100 ft distance when the helicopter was at 2,000 ft The passengers saw it and the pilot, who was very experienced and who had been many years flying the North sea, was understandably extremely shocked and shaken by the incident.
On checking with civil air traffic control, he was advised that there were no aircraft reported in his vicinity. When he reported what had just happened to him, he was told that the jet involved was last reported at high altitude. That implied either that the military pilot had undertaken his low-level approach without notifying the military controller or that the military' controller had not notified the civil controller. Either way, it was a most disturbing occurrence.
I have been advised today of two other incidents involving military aircraft en route to the Rosehearty bombing range. On 9 April, a near miss was reported by a Sprite helicopter involving an F111 jet at 2,000 ft. On 18 April there was an incident involving a fixed-wing aircraft flying from Wick to Aberdeen when an F111 climbed through its own cruising altitude at 5,000 ft. The pilot of the civil aircraft did not see the military plane and could not, therefore, report it as a near miss, but an incident report has been filed.
As I have prepared for this debate, I have found that official figures on near misses are difficult to come by, as the Civil Aviation Authority is reluctant to release them and the Ministry of Defence apparently refuses to discuss the matter fully with anyone involved. It is clear from the information that I have gleaned and from official reports that have been secured that there are significantly more incidents than those formally reported. I suggest that there could be as many as three or four a month, which is alarmingly high.
Since being awarded this debate, I have received reports of similar incidents occurring with helicopters flying out of Humberside en route to the southern gas fields. It would appear that the main reasons for this high level of military activity in the helicopter lanes are the two test bombing ranges at Rosehearty on the Moray coast north of Aberdeen and at Donna Nook on the Humber estuary. The location of these sites is historical—they have been there for some time—and predates the rapid development of helicopter traffic in recent years.
These and other incidents have been referred to the joint air miss working group, which includes military and civil representatives. The military authorities argue that they need to train in an area where they might be expected to operate in wartime conditions and that they can handle flying through areas of relatively dense traffic.
The civil operators and pilots have accepted that and have co-operated, but misses by only feet and split seconds cannot be tolerated. Although in the case of the Rosehearty bombing range the majority of military approaches come from the west, which is away from the main area of helicopter traffic, problems particularly arise when jets turn from over the North sea and make a second run at right angles cutting directly across the helicopter routes to the rigs.
During military exercises an RAF liaison officer is with civil air traffic control, but it is surprising that he does not have direct communication with military jets. He has only a sheaf of paper showing planned movements, so that when an incident develops and can be seen on the radar screen to be developing he is helpless to do anything but watch. Further concern has been expressed about the persistent penetration of controlled air space immediately around Aberdeen airport—not not even in the more open areas further away—and this adds further to air traffic control's difficulties.
The operators of helicopters in the North sea are anxious to stress that they have, and accept, prime responsibility for the safety of their passengers. They operate in an increasingly busy, tightly controlled air space. Their worry, which is the reason why this debate has been brought forward, was highlighted in the current issue of Flight International in a letter from my constituent, Mr. David Warren, who wrote:
It seems beyond belief that, into this busy and closely controlled environment, the Ministry of Defence insists on injecting a Russian Roulette factor by consistently requiring its fast jets, bombers, transports and long-range maritime-patrol aircraft to operate freely, and seemingly with scant regard for the presence of other traffic, specifically oil support helicopters.
There are an average of 150 helicopter movements a day from Aberdeen airport. They are bunched at certain times of the day. The helicopter is the North sea taxi and the normal vehicle for travel to work for thousands of offshore workers. Aberdeen airport handles more than 600,000 helicopter passengers per year. In the year ended 31 March, there were approximately 55,600 movements, including training flights, 45,300 of which were air transport movements. A total of 658,200 passengers were carried. That is a significant number of flights and passengers.
On 22 July 1983, I raised the matter of helicopters in an Adjournment debate. Tragically, that debate followed crashes—an accident at Aberdeen airport, which was miraculously without loss of life, and the sad loss of the British Airways helicopter which crashed in the sea off the Scillies killing 20 people. This time, I am raising the issue to avert what many people fear will occur if action is not taken now. This matter is being raised precisely because helicopter operators and pilots are so worried about this problem and see a need for action.
What should be done? The bombing ranges at Rosehearty and Donna Nook predate the growth of North sea helicopter traffic. Unless there are overwhelming defence and security reasons—it is hard to see that there

are—test bombing ranges should be relocated in an area that does not involve such a dangerous and frequent mix of high-speed low-flying jets and low-speed low-flying passenger helicopters. The military's training requirements will not be accepted as a valid explanation or excuse if a catastrophe occurs.
Most of the civilian helicopter pilots are ex-service men. They understand the military requirements and have sought to co-operate. They are not satisfied with a position that allows such dangerous incidents to occur with, to date, no adequate response to by the Ministry of Defence to deal with the problem. The Ministry must sit down openly and discuss with the civil operators how best to separate civil and military traffic. As long as military aircraft operate at a low level, direct communication with civil air traffic control must be available, so that any developing or potential incident is averted.
There have even been suggestions that helicopter flying should be curtailed during military exercises. As I am sure the House recognises, that could lead to significant delays, inconvenience and even destruction of North sea operations, which we wish to avoid.
In the longer term, we should be prepared to consider whether regulations should allow helicopters to operate in icy conditions — something on which the Norwegians already insist. Although that presents difficulties in the short term, the benefit would be to allow helicopters to climb more quickly above the low level where military jets operate on bombing runs.
I have made much mention of the Ministry of Defence. It is unfortunate—I hope that my fears will prove to be unfounded—that the reply to the debate will come from a Transport Minister when the problem arises almost entirely from military operations. It seems to many, not just me, that the Ministry of Defence is hiding behind the Transport Ministry and is refusing to disclose information or take any initiative to allay fears. I hope that the Minister has noticed written question No. 158 on today's Order Paper, which seeks information from the Ministry of Defence on whether the Ministry is reporting near misses of the type I have described. In some cases, it appears that military pilots have been unaware of their close proximity to helicopters. In other cases, they have felt that there was no problem, as Mr. John Dent, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority suggested in a letter to me.
It is regrettable that many have the overall impression that the Ministry of Defence is at best evasive and hiding behind its security cloak and at worst apparently complacent, as it is not prepared to discuss the issue in the light of sustained concern that has been expressed by many experienced and professional operators. I can only hope that the Minister has had more success in getting information and assurances from the MOD than others who have sought it. I hope, too, that the Minister will recognise that many will be seeking a sign of positive action to prevent collision. I suggest to him, in advance of his reply, that assurances will not be acceptable and will not be accepted. There is a problem and there are solutions to it. I hope that I have spelt out clearly and graphically what the risks are, and I do not believe that military exercises can be justified in peace time if innocent lives are needlessly put at risk.
One pilot told me today that the issue cannot be sensationalised. He explained that it is a shocking sensation when a military jet roars past only feet away from one's helicopter. If the Minister takes action now he


will help to ensure what I hope can be ensured, which is that I never have to rise in this place to question him on how a fatal mid-air collison occurred.

3 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It is natural that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) should be worried by reports of air misses. However, as I shall show, I do not think that the issue is as serious as the phrase "air miss" makes it sound. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has raised the matter with me in correspondence and in parliamentary questions, so I am aware of the extent of unease to which the hon. Member for Gordon has given voice.
It might be helpful if I set out the background. Within the United Kingdom's air space there are areas of quite intensive aerial activity, and the characteristics of flying operations taking place at any one time can be a mix of slow moving light aircraft and helicopters, often unpredictable in their intentions, and the usually predictable public transport aircraft and high performance military aircraft of the Royal Air Force and the air forces of our NATO allies. In some areas there are to be found gliders and microlight aircraft. Each aeroplane or glider has a legitimate right to be in the air. It is the Government's responsibility to provide rules and regulations and an air space management system so that diverse activities can take place with the minimum restriction, consistent with maintaining a high level of safety. In the context of this Adjournment debate, that means activities that are free from the risk of collision.
In practice, the management system is implemented by the national air traffic services, which are provided jointly by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence. The air space above the United Kingdom and its surrounding waters is divided into two types. First, there is controlled air space. This has been established around the principal airports, which links them to one another and continues seaward to join similar airways, which are usually corridors of 10 miles in width, which have been established by neighbouring countries in Europe. Virtually all of this air space is covered by radar, and air traffic controllers give instructions to pilots to achieve an orderly flow of traffic and a safe separation between their aircraft. Aircraft may be assigned different levels at which to fly, and those flying at the same level will be monitored by radar to ensure that they are at least five nautical miles apart. Almost all public transport operations into and out of the United Kingdom operate wholly or for the most part in air space that is controlled in this way.
In the remaining United Kingdom air space, responsibility for avoiding collision rests positively on the pilots. It is often referred to as the areas in which the "see-and-be-seen" rule applies. Pilots are required to conform to the rules of the air. The rules are similar in content and purpose to the highway code. For example, a pilot must give way to an aircraft approaching from his right and he must overtake the preceding aircraft on its right. In some of this air space pilots are able to call for information on the position of other air traffic from one of the many radar units of the national air traffic services. Such advice does not transfer responsibility from the pilot to the controller. Collison avoidance remains the responsibility of the pilots.
Some years ago the NATS introduced the system of air miss reports which has given rise to today's debate. Civil

and military pilots are required to file an air miss report whenever, in their opinion, their aircraft may have been endangered during flight by another aircraft because a risk of collision existed. All air miss reports are considered by the joint air miss working group, which is composed of experienced military and civil air space users, and includes representatives of the British Airline Pilots Association and the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators.
Investigation is detailed and evidence is taken. It has always been the practice for the anonymity of those involved to be maintained and for evidence and reports to remain confidential. Individuals are encouraged by such an assurance to give full and frank descriptions of the circumstances which led to the air miss report so that maximum safety benefits may follow.
Summaries of the findings of the working group are widely distributed to the air space industry and representative aviation organisations. In these, the reports of air misses are categorised as A, B and C. Category A covers those incidents where the working party concluded that there was a risk of collision; B, those with a possible risk; and C, where the assessment was that there was no risk of collision. About 200 reports are filed each year, of which about 8 per cent. only are category A. About 40 per cent. showed a possible risk of collision and over half the reports, on investigation, showed there to be no risk. The House should note that, because it helps to put what otherwise might seem alarming circumstances somewhat more in context.
It must be remembered that there are 2 million or more aircraft movements within United Kingdom air space every year. Slightly fewer than half the air miss reports involve military and civil aircraft, but a high proportion involve light, private air club aircraft, and only about 10 per cent. of air miss reports involve military and civil public transport aircraft. It must be remembered that more than one pilot may file a report of the same incident.
The hon. Member for Gordon and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan have expressed anxiety about three air miss reports in March involving civil helicopters and military aircraft in the area offshore east and north-east of Aberdeen. There have been six reports from that area this year so far. That figure is significantly lower than the 13 over the same period in 1983 or the 17 in 1982. Those six are all under investigation by the joint working group, and I have asked to be informed of the outcome of its considerations.
The area of the North sea extending to the east Shetland basin is one in which there are real problems of air space management. It is in the national interest that helicopter support flights to the offshore oil and gas installations and low-flying, high-performance military aircraft can operate in the same area. Close inshore and around Aberdeen, controlled air space has been established which provides a full air traffic control service applying the accepted civil separation standards to all aircraft arriving at or departing from Aberdeen airport. However, further offshore civil helicopters and military aircraft operate together at times in uncontrolled air space where responsibility for avoiding collision has to be primarily for the pilot. It is in that air space that the six incidents leading to the air miss reports occurred this year.
While procedures have been developed over the years in the North sea support operation which enable NATS to provide increasingly detailed guidance and information on traffic and other matters essential to safety and operation,


they do not substitute for the full air traffic control service which is available elsewhere to virtually all public transport operations.
The situation is well known to both civil and military pilots and is kept constantly under review by the Civil Aviation Authority. All measures which can help to improve safety are given the most careful consideration. Indeed, earlier this month a new system of helicopter tracks to be flown to, from and between offshore installations was introduced, which should add to the safety of the operations.
It is not practicable to introduce in these areas full controlled air space of the kind that I have described as applying in some other parts of the United Kingdom. The helicopters need to fly closely spaced tracks at low level while military pilots are undertaking training needs with great operational flexibility. Radar cover cannot be provided at those low levels for long distances out to sea. As the hon. Gentleman may know, there is a rising plane on the bottom of a radar cover, and when one gets a certain distance away from the radar it has risen sufficiently high that it cannot possibly operate on the very low levels involved, so the techniques used in controlled air space are unsuitable for these operations.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister recognise that, in the light of that information, it is necessary to have direct communication between the military aircraft and the civil aircraft controller?

Mr. Mitchell: I am assured by the controller of the national air traffic services that the procedures in use represent the best way in which the two conflicting activities, which are essential to the national interest, can be accommodated in this air space. The characteristics of this operating environment are brought clearly to the attention of pilots operating in the area, and I intend to maintain a close personal interest in the safety levels which are maintained there.
Some of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman have a bearing on military training requirements. They are, of course, matters for Ministry of Defence Ministers rather than for the Department of Transport. What I have sought to do in responding to the debate is to make clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the description of an air miss, implying a risk to the lives of those involved, gives a somewhat misleading impression. As I have said, over half of those investigated last year did not involve any risk, and those that were examined in detail and involved an element of risk were only 8 per cent. of the filed reports.
The hon. Gentleman will also notice that, in the area to which he referred, the number of air misses notified has declined in each of the past three years. I hope that the decline will continue. I can give the hon. Gentleman further assurance that, in the light of the points that he has raised during the debate, I shall look more closely at them, and particularly at the reports on the six cases which have occurred in the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Three o' clock.